All good answers. Buyer and their agent are holding firm to the 30 days, and seller really wants to sell. I have advised the seller over the course of the past few days that the 30 day request is unreasonable, and told them the same thing that RJ said - what's the point of putting up the earnest money if a couple of days before closing, after the seller has made their plans and started packing, the buyer can simply get out on what to them equates to a no-harm, no-foul contingency for their side?
I wonder if a kick-out clause would help any? It wouldn't be the best solution for the seller, since dollars to doughnuts agents would stop showing (property is getting tons of showings and lots of interest, but we do not have another offer presently). Kick-out is usually used to overcome a contingency upon sale of other property, but could it be effectively used in this case if the seller decided they wanted to give a buyer 30 days (and we are on about a 40 day close frame)?
The sellers' property will remain on the market during the contingency period. Purchaser may remove the contingencies and perform under the terms herein within 48 hours after receipt of written notice that seller has accepted a secondary contract. Should the purchaser elect to withdraw and not remove the contingency, seller will instruct (title company name) to release the buyer's earnest money to the buyer, will release the buyer and the selling broker from all further obligation.
While the government is trying to protect the buyer, they've done the seller dirty on this. Just like Laura said, we are all being turned back into rookies again with this. Is what I have cobbled together a reasonable solution or not? Let me know what you think - I would be so appreciative.