I understand there are contingencies in a contract regarding the inspection period that give the buyer the option to opt out if there is something unexpected that comes up in the inspection. Also the contract gives you equitable interest to market to your network of cash buyers. To a seller it makes since to have an inspection before a contract is signed. Right? I understand the concept when wholesaling is to get a property under contract and assign it to an end buyer who actually purchases the property.
If I'm at the property and the numbers work I don't want to leave there without a contract. Otherwise someone else will come in a swoop it up. My question is how do you explain to a seller why you would have an inspection after the contract is signed? I'm trying to be ethical and honest but at the same time don't want to throw any red flags up with the seller in explaining my reasoning.
That's very standard to do the inspection after a contract is signed, even in typical transactions when the sale is directly between the seller and the end user. It shouldn't raise any red flags for the seller.
The better question is, who would hire and pay money out of pocket without knowing that the deal is accepted? Why would you pay for an inspection when someone else can put it under contract in the meantime?
You want to lock the contract down and inspect the property.
I agree with Paul that it's actually standard operating procedure to do the inspection after the offer has been accepted. Around here, an inspection will cost you at least $200 so why waste that kind of money when you may not have your offer accepted?
As well, you'll also want to have a due diligence and/or feasibility clause which will allow you to get out of the contract if you change your mind - or in the case of wholesaling, cannot find an end buyer.
appreciate the responses