Home sale: No right to terminate?
The most likely reason for this is that the relocation company wants to have a guaranteed sale so as to get a new mortgage in the new location.  Understand that the relocation company generally works for a prospective employer.  So they are trying to make the process as painless as possible for the homeowner (who is probably getting hired as a professional, either a manager or someone like an engineer or accountant).   If the sale is guaranteed to go through regardless of any problems, then it is easy for them to arrange a new mortgage.  In fact, they may bridge the gap by securing the initial financing and making the downpayment, then use the payout from the house you are buying to buy out their position.  That puts them on the hook for a bunch of money (a downpayment on a house) while they're waiting on the house you're purchasing to close.   This does not necessarily mean that there is anything wrong with the house.  The relocation company would only know about something wrong if the owner had disclosed it.  They don't really care about the house they're selling.  Their job is to make the transition easy.  With a relocation company, it is more likely that they are simply in a hurry and want to avoid a busted purchase.  If this sale fails to go through for any reason, they have to start over.  That could make the employment change fall through.   This is a variation of a no contingencies sale.  Sellers like no contingencies sales because they are easier.  Buyers dislike them because their protections are weaker.  But some buyers will offer them because they get better prices that way.  In particular, house flippers will do this frequently so as to get the house for less money than they might otherwise pay.  This is better than a pure no contingencies sale, as they are agreeing to the repairs.   This is a reasonable excuse to not proceed with the transaction.  If this makes you so uncomfortable that you'd rather continue looking, that's fine.  However, it also gives you a bit of leverage, as it means that they are motivated to close this transaction quickly.  You can consider any of the following:   Or you can do some combination of those or something else entirely that makes you fell more secure.  If you do decide to move forward with any version of this provision, get a real estate lawyer to draft the agreement.  Also, insist on disclosure of any previous failed sales and the reason for the failure before signing the agreement.  The lawyer can make that request in such a way as to get a truthful response.   And again, in case you missed it when I said this earlier.  You can say no and simply refuse to move forward with such a provision.  You may not get the house, but you'll save a certain amount of worry.  If you do move forward, you should be sure that you are getting a good deal.  They're asking for special provisions; they should bear the cost of that.  Either your current deal is already good (and it may be) or you should make them adjust until it is.
IMHO you are in no position to buy a home.  If it was me, I'd payoff the student loans, pay off the car, get those credit card balances to zero (and keep them there), and save up at least 10K (as an emergency fund) before even considering buying a home.   Right now you have no wiggle room.  A relatively minor issue with a purchased home can send you right back into trouble financially.  You may be eager to buy, but your finances say different.   Take some time to get your finances on track then think about buying. You can make a really good long term financial decision with no risk:  pay off those credit cards and keep them paid off.  That is a much smarter decision then buying a home at this point in your life. He's complaining about the post freezing a pension and requiring employees to waive their right to sue when terminated to receive severance. Freezing pensions is becoming standard because it's an outdated and expensive way to fund retirement. Requiring a waiver for severance is standard.   This guy comes off like a whiner that doesn't know the way the world works. There is probably a reason the post was in trouble before Bezos. You need to look at where the profits are coming from. In this case, compressed wage growth and extreme cost-cutting. I mean shit, Dimon ripped out all of JPMs Bloomberg terminals. Work happiness at banks are much lower and people are leaving, save for at certain types of banks. The profits are just coming from employees. Overtime is a lot lower to non-existent in right to work states and you'll pull 10-30 hours over what you signed on for on a weekly basis.   If you're not aware of what capital requirements are then I really can't dive into this. I suggest you read up on Basel 3, the US system, liquidity cover ratio (LCR) and then understand generally what products yield more and the risks attached to those.   If you do know those then I feel like you know where my response is going, but I'm happy to get into it more. If you help find a suitable next tenant and help smooth out the transition, most landlord generally don't have an issue to terminate the lease early, and move the contract to the new tenant. Remember that the biggest concerns for landlords is that they don't want the place to be empty (leaving an apartment empty costs them money due to tax, strata, bills, etc as well as putting in jeopardy whatever future plans they might have made under the assumption of a stable income from the rent). You could also offer to pay for the listing agent and other switching fees (e.g. putting bills under the new tenant's name, etc). If you don't have an early termination clause the rental agreement, or sometimes even when you do, these things are often negotiable. If you can guarantee that your leave won't leave them with an empty apartment with no-one paying rentals, most reasonable landlords wouldn't have issue with terminating early.  Many rental agreements also have terms regarding early terminations. This usually involves paying a fee which amounts to a month or two of rent. This may vary. Once you hit 22% equity against the original value of the home, they have to cancel the PMI. No other factors come into play. See this nice overview. Before that, at the 20% equity mark, it's a negotiating situation. If the value of the house goes down, that's a strong point in their favour. But you have excellent history, that's strong in your favour. Thanks for the reply.  These are good points. I didn't think about the fact that they essentially control the price at that point. Especially with a contract agreement.   I decided to not go with an exclusive selling rights deal. Too much market potential to restrict myself. If you have a copy of the deed, or the original deed itself, take it to a lawyer and have them look it over with you and your other sister.  Mention all the details you mentioned here - exactly what you want to do with the property, any correspondence you've had with your sister, and where the property is located.   We can't give you any advice without being able to see the deed, and we're not qualified to give any advice outside of 'get a lawyer', because we're not lawyers.  Get one, and arm him with as much information about the situation as possible. "I will expand on Bacon's comment. When you are married, and you acquire any kind of property, you automatically get a legal agreement.  In most states that property is owned jointly and while there are exceptions that is the case most of the time.   When you are unmarried, there is no such assumption of joint acquisition.  While words might be said differently between the two parties, if there is nothing written down and signed then courts will almost always assume that only one party owns the property.  Now unmarried people go into business all the time, but they do so by creating legally binding agreements that cover contingencies.  If you two do proceed with this plan, it is necessary to create those documents with the help of a lawyer.  Although expensive paying for this protection is a small price in relation to what will probably be one of the largest purchases in your lives. However, I do not recommend this.  If Clayton can and wants to buy a home he should.  Emma can rent from Clayton.  That rent could any amount the two agree on, including zero.  If the two do get married, well then Emma will end up owning any equity after that date.  If they stay together until death, it is likely that she (or her heirs) will own half of it anyway.  Also if this house is sold, the equity pass into larger house they buy after marriage, then that will be owned jointly. If they do break up, the break up is clean and neat.  Presumably she would have paid rent anyway, so nothing is lost.  Many people run into trouble having to sell at a bad time in a relationship that coincides with a weak housing market.  In that case, both parties lose.   So much like Bacon's advice I would not buy jointly.  There is no upside, and you avoid a lot of downside. Don't play ""house"" by buying a home jointly when you are unmarried."