A buyer in Bellevue executes a purchase and sale agreement for $850,000 with a 21-day financing contingency and a 10-day inspection contingency. On day 9, the buyer delivers a written inspection response requesting the seller repair a cracked foundation (estimated $30,000). The seller agrees in writing on day 11 to make the repair before closing. On day 25, the buyer's loan is denied. The buyer attempts to terminate under the financing contingency. The seller argues the buyer waived the financing contingency because the buyer continued to negotiate after day 21 without invoking it. Which party's position is stronger under Washington law?

Correct Answer

D) The buyer's position is stronger if the parties executed a written amendment extending the financing contingency deadline, but the buyer cannot rely on implied waiver arguments to extend it

This is a complex multi-contingency scenario. The key legal issue is whether the financing contingency was waived. Under Washington contract law, waiver of a contractual right — especially a financing contingency — requires clear, unequivocal action. Mere continuation of negotiations after a contingency deadline is not, by itself, a clear waiver, particularly if the parties were actively resolving the inspection issue during that period. However, the buyer cannot simply claim the contingency is still active without a written extension. The buyer's strongest position is if a written amendment extending the financing deadline was executed. Without a written extension, the buyer faces significant risk. The seller's 'implied waiver' argument based solely on continued negotiation is legally weak in Washington — implied waivers of express contractual rights require stronger evidence. The answer reflects the nuanced reality: the buyer's position is stronger only with a written extension; without one, both parties face uncertainty, but the buyer bears the greater risk.