The buyer's agent submitted a 23-page repair request on day 48 of a 60-day close, and the sellers accepted the house as-is three weeks ago.

The repair-versus-credit distinction is real in a meaningful number of jurisdictions, and the buyer's attorney is not making it up. Some courts read "waives the right to request repairs" as covering only physical work, because a price reduction is a contract modification, and a waiver of one remedy does not automatically extinguish a separate remedy unless the addendum says "including any reduction in purchase price or credit at closing." That phrase, or something close to it, is the sentence that closes the gap. If your addendum does not have it, the language is softer than it looks.

The practical pressure point at 12 days is that the buyer has constructed a waiting position: no formal termination means no default, but the clock is eating the seller's leverage daily against 340k in carry. The seller's attorney holding the line only works if the seller is genuinely prepared to let the buyer terminate and relist, and that calculus depends on whether the 52k in flagged items would surface again on any subsequent buyer's inspection, because if they would, a credit negotiation now may be cheaper than another 60-day cycle with a new buyer.

What does the addendum actually say about credits and closing cost adjustments, and does it define "repairs" or leave that term unqualified?

This is a real legal question, and I want to be direct: the repair-request-versus-credit-request distinction is a genuine area of contract law where outcomes turn on the exact clause wording and how courts in that specific jurisdiction have interpreted it. A forum cannot answer it reliably. The seller's attorney and the buyer's attorney disagree for a reason, and the person who needs to resolve this is a real estate litigation attorney licensed in that state, ideally one who has litigated as-is addendum disputes specifically.

What I can say about the general pattern, based on how these situations tend to work, is that as-is language varies enormously. Some addenda are written to waive both repair requests and credit requests as a single category. Others waive only the obligation to repair, leaving a contractual argument open that a price adjustment is a separate negotiated item. Whether that gap exists in this addendum is a clause-by-clause and precedent-by-precedent question.

The thing worth raising with the seller's attorney, if it has not been raised already, is whether the buyer's continued presence under contract without formal termination creates any implied waiver on the buyer's side, and what the notice and response obligations are under that jurisdiction's contract law once a request like this is delivered outside the inspection period.

On the carry cost pressure: $340k already in and 12 days to close is exactly the position the luxury flip strategy guide describes as the defining risk of the segment, where a thin buyer pool and long hold times magnify every cost. That context matters for how aggressively the seller wants to negotiate, but it does not change what the contract allows.

What jurisdiction is this in? That would help the room think through whether anyone has seen similar language tested there.