The standard purchase-and-sale agreement circulating in most state Realtor associations covers the basics, but it leaves significant gaps where liability concentrates. What separates a defensible contract from a problematic one is rarely the boilerplate. It is the handful of provisions that practitioners either draft precisely or leave dangerously vague.
Buyer-agent compensation clauses after the NAR settlement
The 2024 NAR settlement restructured how buyer-agent compensation flows through a transaction. MLS-participant agents must now execute a written buyer agreement before touring homes, and that agreement must state the compensation amount, rate, or calculation method. Offers of buyer-agent compensation no longer appear on the MLS itself, though sellers remain free to negotiate it outside that system.
See also: Employment law: Recognizing and addressing workplace discrimination in the United States
This shift turns compensation into a contract term rather than a background marketplace convention. We recommend that buyers scrutinize three provisions in any buyer-broker agreement:
- Cancellation rights and under what conditions the buyer can terminate the agreement without owing compensation
- Payment obligations if the seller contributes nothing toward the buyer’s agent fee at closing
- Whether the agreement covers properties the buyer locates independently, or only those sourced through the agent
Failing to negotiate these points before signing locks the buyer into financial exposure that previously did not exist at the contract level. A vague or overly broad buyer-broker agreement can create a second layer of dispute on top of the purchase contract itself.
Read also: Family law reforms: The future of custody battles in the United States
Entity purchases and FinCEN beneficial-ownership reporting
All-cash acquisitions through LLCs or trusts face an unstable federal reporting landscape. FinCEN’s Residential Real Estate Reporting Rule was designed to cover certain non-financed residential transfers to legal entities and trusts nationwide, without a minimum purchase-price threshold, with reporting responsibilities assigned through a closing-agent cascade.
The rule’s enforcement status has shifted. A federal court order currently suspends the filing requirement, and FinCEN does not require reports while that order remains in effect. This does not mean the issue is resolved. It means it is deferred, and contracts drafted today may close in an environment where the rule is active again.
We observe a growing practice of allocating three specific obligations in the purchase agreement when an entity buyer is involved:
- Which party bears the cost of gathering and disclosing beneficial-owner information
- Who is responsible for compliance with reporting rules in effect at the time of closing, not at the time of signing
- A representation from the entity buyer confirming the accuracy of ownership disclosures and indemnifying the seller if those disclosures prove false
Contracts involving entity buyers should allocate regulatory compliance costs explicitly rather than assuming anonymity or stable requirements. The FinCEN residential-property rule is distinct from the Corporate Transparency Act, and conflating the two creates drafting errors we see regularly in practice.
Contingency deadlines as liability triggers in real estate contracts
Contingency clauses protect both sides, but only when they include hard deadlines and clear consequences for missing them. The most common drafting failure is not the absence of a contingency. It is the absence of a defined default mechanism when a contingency deadline passes without action.
Consider the financing contingency. A well-drafted clause specifies the date by which the buyer must secure a commitment letter, the lender requirements that qualify as “commitment,” and whether the contingency expires automatically or requires written waiver. A poorly drafted clause says the buyer has a “reasonable time” to obtain financing. That ambiguity invites litigation.
Inspection contingencies carry the same risk. The contract should state whether the buyer’s remedy is limited to requesting repairs, a credit, or cancellation, and what happens if the seller rejects the request. Without an explicit “walk-away” trigger tied to a date, the buyer’s right to terminate becomes a negotiation rather than a contractual mechanism.
Appraisal gaps deserve the same rigor. If the property appraises below the purchase price, the contract should define who absorbs the difference, whether the buyer can terminate, and whether earnest money is refundable in that scenario. Leaving any of these questions to “good faith negotiation” after the gap appears is a drafting failure, not a strategy.
Earnest money disputes and escrow release language
Earnest money provisions are among the most litigated clauses in residential real estate. The deposit itself is straightforward. The dispute arises from the release mechanism.
A contract that requires mutual written consent for escrow release creates a standoff by design. If one party believes it is entitled to the deposit and the other disagrees, neither will sign a release, and the escrow agent holds the funds indefinitely. Many state-approved forms default to this structure.
Practitioners drafting bespoke agreements should consider a unilateral release with cure period: one party delivers written notice of its claim to the deposit, the other party has a defined number of days to object, and if no objection is filed, the escrow agent disburses automatically. This structure does not eliminate disputes, but it prevents indefinite holds.
Another overlooked provision is the treatment of earnest money if the transaction fails due to a title defect. Standard contracts often specify refund conditions for financing and inspection failures but say nothing about title. If title cannot be delivered as warranted, the buyer should receive a full refund without needing to negotiate a mutual release. Title-defect refund rights should be automatic, not conditional on seller consent.
State-specific disclosure rules and contract enforceability
Enforceability of a real estate contract depends not just on mutual consent and consideration but on compliance with state-specific disclosure obligations. These vary significantly. Some states require sellers to disclose known material defects on a standardized form before the contract becomes binding. Others impose disclosure after contract execution but before closing, with the buyer retaining a rescission right during a defined period.
The Statute of Frauds requires real estate contracts to be in writing, but state law adds layers. Property description must be legally sufficient, not just a street address. In states that require a legal description referencing a recorded plat or survey, a contract identifying the property only by address may be voidable.
Merger clauses deserve close attention. A merger clause provides that the written contract supersedes all prior negotiations and representations. Without one, a buyer may argue that oral promises made during showings are enforceable terms. With one, the seller is protected, but the buyer loses leverage if material representations were made outside the written agreement. The clause should be drafted intentionally, not accepted as default boilerplate.
Real estate contracts function as risk-allocation instruments. Every provision either assigns a specific risk to a specific party or leaves it unassigned, which means it will be resolved by litigation or arbitration rather than by the agreement itself. The provisions that matter most are rarely the ones that get the most attention during negotiation. They are the ones that define what happens when something goes wrong.
