All used properties are sold "As Is", but as is does NOT mean "what they buyer can find is what they buyer is buying" and that confusion is grossly exploited in this clause. .

Clause 11 introduces the idea of As Is Sales, without explicitly stating what the statutes and Case Precedents of California actually require as part of “As Is” Sales, which are the following:

1. An "As Is Sale" is a phrase that sits juxtaposition to a "with warranty" sale.  There are no direct or implied warranties for future performance. 

2. The "As Is Condition" at time of Contract Execution is actually comprised of: 

   1.  what a buyer could surmise on a casual walkthrough PLUS

   2. full, complete and proper representation statements of PAST and PRESENT material fact and defects known to the seller BEFORE Contract Execution that might affect a buyers perception of Value.

3. The "As Is Condition" visible adn presented at time of Agreement Acceptance is to be "verified" during "inspections" during Escrow.

When you look at the proper perspective above and compare to Contract Clause 11, many things stand out as imcomplete,  opposing, or even "fully inverted"...

1. "Present Condition" - there is reference to "present condition" but there is no clarification as to how that is defined.  

2. "Past conditions" - there is no reference to past conditions at all

3. "Disclosure AFTER Agreement Acceptance" - The Buyer is told the Seller can DISCLOSE KNOWN MATERIAL FACTS AND DEFECTS until time specified in 14A which is AFTER agreement acceptance, contradicting proper legal process that must transpire in all contracts to avoid claims for "common law fraudulent misrepresentation", be it explicitly stated or otherwise. 

4.  "Buyer Investigations and Discovery" - It suggests buyers have until time specified in 14B to do "investigations" to "discover conditions" (as opposed to doing "inspections " to "verify" disclosed conditions)

QUESTION: When these opposing views are considered above is there a "legal argument of fact" that can be discussed to try to validate or disvalidate one or the other?  YES there is and it is a very simple conversation to have...

Position 1)  IF the "Agreement Acceptance" noted in the Contract does in fact serve as a synonym for "Contract Execution",  then the Contract Clause instructions are fraudulent, as "representation statements" of material fact and defect MUST BE MADE prior to executing any contracts be that explicitly stated or not, as a function of Common Law. 

Position 2) IF "Agreement Acceptance" noted in the Contract did NOT create a contract, and it created something lesser like a "letter of intent",  these instructions could be a legal part of that document. 

There are numerous statements in the Agreement that indicate it was in fact designed to be a binding Contract that get executed at time of Agreement Acceptance, with a follow on "executory period" for the consummation of the execution.  

In private Attorneys have been fraudulently pushing off harmed buyers who were seeking damages for "induction into a Contract with 'bait and switch tactics' " with one of two positions: 

1. This wasn't a contract at time of Agreement Execution. It became a contract sometime later. 

2. This wasn't a contract until  Close of Escrow

3. It became a contract at time of Agreement Acceptance BUT representation statements aren't due  representation stamens are not due until full consummations of all acts, which transpires at close of escrow. 

If any would like to come to court and make any of these arguments in court, I have court cases coming up and I will gladly bring you in as an opposing witness.