I'd get a couple of other estimates on the septic. Until you've done perc tests and know what type of soil you actually have, you won't know what type of septic is required. Here they can range from 5K to 50K, if one has really bad soil. A "ballpark" from some one who hasn't done soil tests is meaningless. Poor soil drainage or excessive drainage, both add to the costs of the system, which can, in some cases, require extensive engineering and earth moving. I agree that shocking the well (and also the entire water system) may lower your E. coli. This is a common practice, and though potential buyers are made nervous, most times it solves the problem. However, once you've done it and time or so, if you're stilling getting unsatisfactory test results, it's time to assume that the problem isn't due to an unused water system. I would then start to look at contamination issues. Surface contamination (run-off or lack of sealing at the top of the well) can be remedied fairly easily. Sub-surface contamination is much more difficult because the solution may not be on your property. In those circumstances drilling a new well would be in order. Here again, the costs can vary, a lot, and you won't know till you're done, so budget for the most expensive possibility. Another problem with deeply drilled wells is sometimes the water quality is not so hot, safe to drink, but hard or sulphurous. I'd be asking the neighbors how their water is. In my area (NY), wells must be 100 feet from the fartherest extension of the septic field and its expansion area, unless, due to topography or other factors, the septic is higher up a slope than the well. In that case you need 200 feet of separation. A well usually is described as having an "exclusion" zone around it in all directions. BTW, you may find that you have problems getting a mortgage without potable water and approved, functioning, sanitary facilities, and you may not even be able to close without them, even if you don't need a mortgage. Molly~

The inspection is supposed to be to catch substantial problems that couldn't be spotted on a walk-through, not cosmetic issues and highly visible things. It's becoming a "let's make an offer and then beat it down using the inspection report as the weapon" practice with the "pending results of inspection" clause. Do major repairs, or reduce price, but not both. Some buyers will try to get you on both ends. If they don't like the inspection report they have the option to walk or not if there is anything about the report they don't like (unless the "pending inspection results" clause is written to include only "health and safety and structural stability" issues), but they don't have the option to make you fix things to their satisfaction unless you stupidly wrote a contract like that. The response to an inspection report (and they tend to document every possible flaw to prove they are worth their fee) should be a binding repair proposal from the seller. That is a list that specifies that seller will fix the problems listed on the proposal and that on completion of the agreed-upon repairs, as verified by buyer's agent, a walkthrough, submitted repair invoices with pictures (whatever makes sense) the closing will take place at the price of ____. The REALTORS should make it clear to the buyer that the buyer does not have unlimited rounds of negotiating what will be fixed or not fixed, and there should be a time limit for this negotiating in the repair proposal, after which you will be free to accept other offers. Don't let them hang on for weeks haggling about the way a closet door hangs and keep your place off the market. After the repair proposal has been negotiated and signed they don't get to keep dragging stuff out and saying "what about this?" That repair agreement should lead right to the closing table! NOTE: We bought our NM house out from under a buyer whose tactic was to keep bringing up stuff from the inspection report and re-opening negotiations about price. Fortunately for the seller, the sales agreement had expired as had the numerous extensions and amendments they had been making for various repairs. Each time we've tried to sign off on the repair requests, the buyer not only questions our choice of contractors but brings other issues to the table that were previously resolved. This should be managed by the REALTORS. The REALTORS should have a signed contract specifying exactly what repairs are necessary for closing to happen ... and the contract should prevent their revisiting closed issues. Buyer, unless they are paying for the repair, does not get to question your choice of contractor. BTW, this is not the first house that fell through for them due to home repair issues. It sounds like they may have unrealistic expectations about the condition of used houses.

We had potential buyers (old friends)who wanted the house and made an offer that was accepted by us. They told everyone the house was theirs even though we hadn't closed yet and they dropped by daily. The house was empty but the neighbors reported the visits, the use of the dock when they came by boat, a wild party the twenty five year old sons had one night. Our broker found out about the party and told us and also told the buyer it was inappropriate. They wanted a key; wanted to put the utilities in their name; pestered the broker daily. Everyone, including the man who did the termite inspection, knew they were buying the house. Our agreement said that we had the right to market and show house until the closing. With this potential buyer telling everyone it was his house it was hard to show the house to any other people. He would show up everyday. Much to our surprise and intense dismay the JERK dropped out of the contract because he suddenly decided he couldn't afford the house--there were no contengencies. We got to keep the deposit but our old friend made a fool out of himself and ruined the friendship. We let him out of the contract because we were so disgusted. We have another contract but like every one says "it ain't over til the check clears the bank."

First, someone can't claim to be an inspector and upon his word you are free of the contract. The courts have commonly upheld and stated many times that in all real estate transactions both the buyer and the seller "must act honestly, reasonably, and in good faith." They have also said that home inspections by unqualified inspectors violate the above standard of care, and are not sufficient. Now, they did not specifically say who is and is not qualified but they don't need to as they only need to apply the standard of reasonableness to it. That a reasonable person would accept the inspector as qualified. Now onto the other thing, traditionally courts have upheld that a full approval, or general inspection, clause is not sufficient in and of itself to terminate a contract. The buyer still must act honestly, reasonably, and in good faith. You can't just cancel the contract for minor repairs. Then in 2002 the courts kind of reversed that a bit in Marshall v. Bernard, which contained the language, "receipt of a report satisfactory to him, in his sole and absolute discretion." The courts basically said the language so plainly gave the discretion to the buyer that they upheld it. However, since Marshall v. Bernard two things have happened, (1) sole and absolute discretion has been stricken from most contracts because of the subjectivity. (2) The courts have now defined this as the minimum standard. In other words to really cancel the contract while not acting in good faith you must have those words or very similar words in your contract. Here is a general inspection clause I pulled off realtytimes This contract is contingent upon the buyer having the right to engage a professional inspector to determine the structure and condition of the house. The inspection shall be conducted and the contingency concluded within five working days from the date of acceptance of this contract. The inspection report must be satisfactory to purchaser, or all deposit monies will be immediately refunded and all contract obligations considered null and void. Notice it doesn't contain any words like "sole and absolute" that are necessary to cancel the contract at will. The buyer in this case will still be subject to a reasonableness test, and must be acting in good faith. Because of these things and other problems with general inspection clauses they are being replaced with a repair limit clause. The repair limit has no subjectivity to it, once your repairs hit a specified amount then the buyer can decline. Since almost any home repair will easily exceed $500 to $1,000 they actually afford the buyer more protection. Not to mention the added bonus of forcing repairs. The problem with a general inspection clause is what happens if your $600 of inspections return $700 of repairs and the seller says no? You are so vested in the house are you going to walk away? Edit: The reason that buyers can cancel the contract at will is simply because the sellers let them. And usually they should, I don't think it is very decent to make someone buy a house they don't want, however, I don't think the sellers are always undamaged in the exchange. But many of the things that people take as their right are realistically just a testament to the goodwill and decency of others.