Home Guru - I understand that the original posting was from South Carolina, that is why I qualified my post by starting it with "Here in California"
I understand and agree with your point that a third party is not a party to the contract, but I respectfully submit to you that my point was misunderstood.
**A: your point was misunderstood because you provided erroneous information. You stated that "as-is statements can be nullified by loan contingencies....." and "then the as-is is over ridden by the loan and appraisal contingencies..."
And you have somewhat corrected yourself below.
Note that the topic of the thread was "Is As-Is clause legally binding?" In this case, the blanket statement would not be enforceable because components sold as is must be addressed and disclosed pursuant to property condition disclosure law. A Seller cannot fail to disclose specific material facts then hide behind a blanket as-is clause.
For an as-is clause to be effective, the seller must disclose what is being sold as-is.
EX: the following items are in need of repair.
1. the roof leaks over the master bedroom.
2. the door to the laundry room has a hole in it.
3. the carpet is damaged by the dining room.
The items listed above are being sold as-is and the Seller will not be repairing the items.
In this thread, the writer did not disclose the specific item, therefore the as-is clause would not be legally binding on the Buyer.
Further, if your first advice was correct, then the entire as-is statement would be nullified. The correct information would be that if the lender required only item #1 to be repaired, the as-is clause would still be in effect. If the Seller refused to repair the roof, then you are correct in that the mortgage financing contingency would make the contract null and void. Thus as you clarified, it is the contract that would be null and void and not the as-is contingency.
********************
*********************
My point was that if the contract is "As Is", but a loan contingency is in place, a repair condition called for by the lender that is not corrected would prevent the buyer from obtaining financing. In that situatation, the loan contingency would override the AS IS clause which would then nullify the contract (because of the loan contingency, not the AS IS clause). Of course a lender is not going to force a repair for something minor such as a kitchen cabinet for example, in which case the AS IS clause would be in effect. I am only speaking about safety and welfare repairs. The exception to this is on repo homes where no repairs are made by the seller (HUD for example) because HUD gurantees to insure the property. In that situation, no appraisal is required, and lenders who are approved to loan on HUD PD properties do not require lender repairs, which is why rarely can I place a conventional loan on a HUD repo.
*******************
As for my comment about purchasing a car, I was only trying to illustrate my point. I was in no way trying to say that purchasing a car and a home are the same. I am very much aware that the regulations are different for each purchase. I hope you will excuse me for using this example.
**A: thank you for your clarifications.