Lawyer did not advise seller of contingencies

What is the name of your state? Connecticut.

We signed a binding sales contract with our buyers. The contract states that the agreement is not subject to any inspection contingencies. Our buyers requested from the building inspector a mold test. They received the results after signing the sales contract. They claim that the mold test results indicate the presence of a mold that may exascerbate allergies. They want us, the sellers, to pay to have this problem resolved. Our lawyer claims that the seller's lawyer emailed him that he wanted a contingency based on the mold test results, but our lawyer's spam filter prevented him from receiving the email. Thus, when we signed the contract, we knew of no outstanding mold test or of any contingencies. What is our position?

[HomeGuru]

Originally posted by Casanova
What is the name of your state? Connecticut.

We signed a binding sales contract with our buyers. The contract states that the agreement is not subject to any inspection contingencies. Our buyers requested from the building inspector a mold test. They received the results after signing the sales contract. They claim that the mold test results indicate the presence of a mold that may exascerbate allergies. They want us, the sellers, to pay to have this problem resolved. Our lawyer claims that the seller's lawyer emailed him that he wanted a contingency based on the mold test results, but our lawyer's spam filter prevented him from receiving the email. Thus, when we signed the contract, we knew of no outstanding mold test or of any contingencies. What is our position?

**A: your legal position is that there was no inspection contingencies agreed to in the contract although you should resolve the mold problem or lose the sale.