Dublin condo: does “as-is” limit an inspection contingency?

N

NimblePlan

First-time buyer
Established
We offered on a Dublin condo at a price reflecting its present condition, but the offer also contains an inspection contingency. The seller now says that asking for further information—or suggesting a credit—goes against the spirit of “as-is.”

Our concern is not cosmetic work. It is the possibility of a major insurance problem that could affect financing, resale and rental yield. We want to distinguish two things: accepting the condition and price without routine repairs, versus retaining the right to withdraw if inspection or insurance information reveals a serious risk.

How would you handle this in practice? Please keep any Ireland-specific legal requirements separate from personal risk tolerance.
 
Commercially, “as-is” can mean you priced in visible defects and will not seek ordinary repairs. An inspection contingency may still provide a decision point, but its actual effect depends entirely on its wording and the stage of the Irish transaction.

The seller can refuse a credit without proving you breached anything. Whether you can then withdraw without deposit exposure is the question for the solicitor handling the conveyance, especially before any response deadline passes.
 
What is the suspected insurance problem: something within the unit, inadequate cover for the whole building, or a lender raising concerns? Those lead to different decisions.

Also, has a binding contract been signed, where is the deposit held, and does the contingency identify what findings allow withdrawal? “Inspection contingency” is too broad to assess without those details.
 
I would push back slightly on the idea that the contingency necessarily preserves a fresh negotiation. It may protect an exit while giving no entitlement to a repair credit. The seller’s “spirit” argument is beside the point, but so is treating every adverse finding as permission to reprice.

If the insurance issue makes the property unacceptable, use the clause exactly as drafted or proceed as-is. Asking once for a credit is reasonable; assuming the seller must entertain it is not.
 
Agreed on separating exit rights from bargaining rights. I would also keep financing out of the inspection discussion unless the wording connects them. Proof that the buyer can fund the agreed price does not resolve an insurer’s concern, and an appraisal gap is another issue again.

For the financial decision, compare completed sales rather than asking prices, then model rental yield with the unresolved insurance cost treated conservatively. If the deal only works when that unknown is ignored, that answers the personal-risk question even if the legal route remains available.
 
The practical move is a short written request with a firm reply date: identify the insurance information needed, explain that it is required to evaluate the contingency, and avoid mixing it with a list of minor defects. Then decide in advance among three outcomes—continue at the agreed price, request a specific credit, or withdraw if the contract permits.

Seller motivation matters here. A seller prioritising speed may provide the records quickly but reject any reduction; another may prefer to lose the buyer rather than reopen price. Your solicitor should confirm the contractual steps and deposit consequences before you send a withdrawal or let a deadline expire.
 
One more distinction: requesting documents is not the same act as demanding repairs. If the seller will not provide enough information to understand the building’s insurance position, that refusal is itself useful for your risk decision, though it does not automatically create a legal right to leave.

I would send the exact clause and proposed message to the Irish solicitor, ask for a plain answer on deadlines and deposit exposure, and separately set a maximum uninsured or unfinanceable risk you are willing to accept. That keeps Irish contract questions apart from personal tolerance, as requested.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top