Table of Contents:
Every Negotiation is Different
On Strategy, Mindset and Positioning in Negotiations
Handling Post Acceptance Adjustments
Every Negotiation is Different
Real estate negotiations are shaped by timing, positioning, and preparation. There is no single approach that works in every situation. Every client has different priorities, financial constraints, and risk tolerance.
The agent’s role is to guide the process, not direct it. Present options, explain outcomes, and help clients make informed decisions. When clients understand their choices, they are more confident throughout the negotiation.
Tip: Instead of asking, “What should we do?” guide the conversation toward, “Here are the options and how each one plays out.”
Pre-Planning and Understanding Your Client
It is especially important to understand the needs and wants of your clients before entering into a negotiation. You should have a clear picture on where your client can be flexible and offer value to the other side and, similarly, understand where your client cannot budge.
To put this in perspective, let's imagine a scenario: you have a buyer client that runs a salvage business but have a tight budget. They find a property that they like, but is slightly outside of their budget. Additionally, the subject property is full of junk cars and items that have accumulated over years.
You present an offer to the Seller that is below asking with a term that the seller needs to remove all junk from the property prior to completion. They counter by bringing the price up by 50k. You can then counter back with a lower offer, but also remove the term that the seller needs to remove all junk. The seller accepts the offer.
This is a very simple example, but helps to get the point across: understanding your clients needs and capabilities can help you get the deal done.
On Strategy, Mindset and Positioning in Negotiations
Leverage is such a key part of the negotiation process. This is realistically an art in and of itself. People spend years understanding the negotiation process and how to approach the other side. There is really no other way to learn than by trial and error, due to the fact, that every negotiation is different. However, if we can offer a few words of advice:
- Verbal Conversations: A lot of negotiations may happen over the phone between agents. While these conversations can feel productive, they can also undermine your client’s negotiating position if not handled carefully. Simple statements like “We could probably make that work if the price comes down” or “my client has room to move” may seem harmless, but they can quickly set expectations that are difficult to walk back.
Our advice in these situations is to slow things down. Let the other side say their piece, gather the information you need, and then close the conversation with “Let me review this with my client and get back to you.” The key is to ask questions and avoid giving specific answers that could limit your client’s position later in the negotiation. -
Avoiding Early Concessions: Don’t give away valuable terms before you need to. A common example is including the seller’s preferred dates in your initial offer. Unless you’re writing at full price in a highly competitive situation, this isn’t always the best move. Those dates can be powerful negotiation tools.
Consider a seller that pushes back hard on price, by not conceding value early, you’re not limited to negotiating on price alone. You can bring those other terms into the discussion that matter to them, such as possession dates or conditions, and use those as part of the trade-off. This keeps the negotiation more balanced and prevents it from becoming one-sided.
-
Focus on Collaboration: It’s easy to slip into the idea that negotiation is a tug-of-war. In practice, that mindset rarely produces the best results. You’ll usually do better by framing the negotiation as a shared effort to reach a workable solution, rather than a contest against the other side.
This doesn’t mean you’re giving ground. It’s about how you position your points. When you keep the tone calm, respectful, and solution-oriented, people are more open to adjusting their position. When the conversation feels tense or adversarial, they’re more likely to hold firm.
Much of this comes down to how you lead the dialogue. With experience, you develop an instinct for it, but it always starts the same way: approach the conversation with the goal of solving the problem, not winning the argument
Handling Post Acceptance Adjustments
There are several situations where a buyer may reasonably ask for a price adjustment after an offer has been accepted. Most of the time, this stems from information uncovered during the due diligence period. This stage is often the most sensitive part of the transaction. New facts emerge, expectations shift, and if the conversation isn’t handled carefully, the deal can easily drift off course.
When issues arise, how they are presented is critical. If you rely on vague statements or rough estimates, you can expect resistance. When you bring clear, specific, well-supported information, the discussion changes. This goes for both the buyer and seller.
For instance, saying a roof “might need replacing” is uncertain and easy to dismiss. Providing a written quote from a qualified contractor gives the seller something concrete to evaluate. The conversation moves from opinion to actual cost.
Ultimately, much of negotiation is built on trust.
When your position is supported by inspection reports, contractor quotes, and organized documentation, it’s far easier for the other side to take it seriously, and for the listing agent to convey the buyer’s position to their seller.
The tone of the negotiation shifts as well. Instead of debating motives or intentions, the focus turns to how both sides can move forward.
Over time, this is what builds your professional reputation. When other agents know you come prepared, rely on evidence, and negotiate reasonably, it changes how they approach a deal with you before the first conversation even begins.
A Case Study: 1161 Fort St
Our purchase at 1161 Fort St is a strong example of how patience, positioning, and thorough due diligence can shape a negotiation outcome. Over the course of several months, the property ultimately sold for nearly $300,000 below the original asking price.
Initial Positioning:
We first viewed the property about three months before purchasing. At that time, we expressed interest but made it clear the price was too high. Rather than forcing negotiations, we chose to step back. We were firm on price, the property was entering the slower winter market, and in our view, it was overpriced. Waiting was a deliberate strategy.
Re-Engaging with Leverage:
Three months later, the property price was reduced. We waited briefly, then arranged a second viewing.
This time, our approach was different. We evaluated the property with a more critical lens and were more direct in our communication. We made it clear that we anticipated significant repairs and that further due diligence would be required before we could seriously consider an offer.
What allowed us to take this position was a combination of factors:
-
We had remained firm on our pricing from the beginning
-
The office market was slow, and the listing had been sitting for some time
- The property had previously gone under contract, but the deal had collapsed
All of this created a shift in leverage, and we approached the opportunity accordingly.
Due Diligence as a Negotiation Tool:
Over the following two weeks, we carried out a thorough due diligence process. The inspection revealed several material concerns, including rotting siding, a beam and post foundation, and a range of required repairs and upgrades. Rather than relying on general observations, we obtained quotes from contractors to understand the real cost of these issues.
This step was critical. It allowed us to move beyond opinion and present a position grounded in evidence. When we submitted our offer, which was below the asking price, it was supported by clear documentation and a logical rationale.
Competing Offers and Risk Framing
During this time, the seller identified a second potential buyer who had recently shown interest in the property. This introduced competition, but not necessarily clarity.
The two offers presented very different scenarios:
-
Our offer was lower in price, but nearly subject-free due to the work we had already completed
-
The competing offer was closer to asking, but heavily conditional and reliant on future due diligence
From the seller’s perspective, this created a meaningful decision point. The higher offer carried more uncertainty. Given that they had already experienced a collapsed deal, the risk of going through that process again was significant.
Conclusion:
Our preparation, combined with a clear and consistent position from the outset, allowed us to present an offer that was not only credible but reliable. In contrast, the competing offer introduced too many unknowns.
In the end, the principle that guided the decision was simple: a bird in hand is better than two in the bush.
We hope this has been informative and please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions!