Clients I'm working with who are trying to buy a home settled on the one they want this week. It's a foreclosure and, as with most foreclosure properties, it's sold as is. That means we can't make the offer contingent on a home inspection or a radon inspection.

Normally, what I advise clients to do in this situation is to have a home inspection done before writing an offer. But in this case the bank already had several offers and gave us a deadline if we wanted to submit an offer. We had less than 20 hours to do so.

It's impossible to get a radon inspection in that time. And, it's practically impossible to get a home inspection done that quickly. In the end, my clients decided to pass on writing an offer on this home.

Here's my dilemna. I advised them that it's certainly not prudent to buy a home without an inspection. And, that's true. But the deeper truth is that I'd have put an offer on this home without a home inspection. It's a pretty new home, built in 2005. I see nothing that worries me, nothing to suggest water or pest issues, my two biggest worries. I am, by nature, less risk averse than your average individual.  And, so, I'd have jumped in and made that offer.

But, it seems like the wrong advice to give to clients. First of all, let's all admit that we live in a litigious society. God forbid something seriously wrong shows up after they've moved in. These are very, very nice people. But that doesn't mean they wouldn't sue me for giving them bad advice and costing them a lot of money. And, that does impact what I say.

I also try very, very hard to never push my own personal likes, dislikes and personal biases on my clients. So, just because I'm willing to take that risk doesn't mean I assume that my clients have that same willingness to take risks with what may be their largest investment.

I'll admit that I remain a little torn about this. It's possible this would have been a good home for them. And I'll never know whether my advice was right or wrong. Don't you hate that?!