Which statement is considered problematic and should not be included in the Special Provisions section of the contract?

The statement indicating that all of the examples provided are problematic captures a critical aspect of how Special Provisions should be handled in contracts. Each of the examples presents potential complications that can lead to disputes or misunderstandings.

For example, a statement that a contract is subject to a satisfactory inspection report places a significant condition on the validity of the agreement, which can create uncertainty. If the inspection does not meet the buyer's standards, it could lead to an abrupt termination, leaving both parties in a difficult position.

Regarding the provision that allows the buyer to move in three days before closing, this introduces the risk of liability and possession issues. The buyer technically does not own the property until closing is finalized, which could lead to liability for any damage or legal complications arising during that period.

Similarly, allowing the seller to remain in the property for three days after closing can also be problematic, particularly regarding possession, insurance, and utility responsibilities. This sort of arrangement can create a gray area where the seller may still engage with the property after the sale, complicating matters concerning ownership and liability until the conditions are clearly defined.

By highlighting that all of these statements are problematic, it emphasizes the need for clarity and certainty in contractual provisions. Each of these clauses introduces potential ambiguity