A contract I watched fall apart at the title company taught me more than the ones that closed
The deal: a wholesaler had a house under contract at 118k, found a cash buyer at 141k, and the assignment fee sat at 23k on the addendum. Title pulled the original purchase agreement, saw the fee disclosed, and still cleared it. What killed it was a second clause buried in the original contract that required seller written consent before any assignment. The wholesaler had an assignment clause on page one and a consent requirement on page four, and treated the first one as if the second did not exist. The buyer walked when they saw it because they had done this before and knew what a clouded process looks like. The 23k evaporated in about eleven minutes. The fix was not complicated: a double close would have kept the seller out of the fee conversation entirely, and the consent clause would have been satisfied at the first close without anyone needing to explain a number. The double close costs real money, somewhere between 1,500 and 4,000 depending on the transactional lender and the title shop, but on a 23k spread that is a cost of doing business, not a deal killer. What I want the room to think about is this: the assignment clause and the consent clause are not the same protection, and most template contracts people pull from online have both without flagging the conflict. Which sentence in your current purchase contract gives the seller a veto over your buyer, and have you actually read it this week?
