A relative of mine found a fantastic house on the market (Canada), evaluated 750k. He knew there were 3 other buyers making offers and he was entering a bidding war. He made an 800k offer and was the highest bid, offering to take ownership 3 months from now, which is usual to give seller time to prepare and move.
The seller came up with a counter proposition. He agreed to the amount. The thing is, he wants the cash NOW and even if ownership is transferred, he included in deal that he (the seller) would rent the house and continue living in it for 12 months and pay 3k/month rent.
At that point my relative felt this person was dishonest not to disclose these unusual requests from the start and just backed out from the deal, letting the 3 other bidders fight for the house.
This seems risky from the buyer's perspective. Let's say the buyer owns a house himself, he would have to support 2 mortgages for a year. If he waits 9 months to sell his first house, the market could change. If a recession happens perhaps his first house would lose value but he would still have buy the first house at big price. That said, it could go the other way and prices could go up.
From the seller's perspective, I imagine him investing the money for a year and if the interest goes beyond 4.5%, he recovers all the money invested in rent. (3k * 12 month / 800k = 4.5%) Or perhaps he wants the first buyer to finance a new house he is building?
Is there any shady reason why the seller would use this strategy?