What wording do you use in a contract in case unforseen issues come up during the due diligence period?
So, for context, I am putting together a PSA for purchase of an industrial parcel being sold by the city via a CRE broker.

What language would I add into it so that if something unforeseen pops up during the due diligence before closing that gives me a way to exit, renegotiate, or pause the contract?

Specifically, I have potential concerns about a possible issue that will come to light during the Phase I ESA. I have knowledge of this issue, and am comfortable with potential remediation of it, but I would like to be able to use that as leverage for price concessions or cost sharing.

I'm sure there is standard language for this, but I'm just looking for some input?
[{"id": "ip94h8g", "text": "Finish the ESA before your feasibility period ends or extend it just for the phase 1.", "replies": [], "depth": 1}, {"id": "ip9sy2u", "text": "Most PSAs have language that basically leaves you free to walk for any reason during dd. Provided you have enough time to do a phase I/II you should be able to terminate and recover your EMD. \n\nIf you\u2019re looking for language that, based on your knowledge of the property, would trigger an automatic price reduction or cost sharing in the event of remediation being required, it\u2019d be tough for either side to commit to such language without a known dollar amount or evidence that remediation is required. Not to say that you wouldn\u2019t have leverage if it ultimately is", "replies": [{"id": "ipcahwy", "text": "Thanks for your input; yea, I'm not looking for anything automatic or predetermined on price or action, I was just curious if there was boilerplate language I could make sure was specifically indicated in the PSA that might spell out negation or renegotiation of the original contract based on additionally discovered information.", "replies": [], "depth": 2}, {"id": "ipepdml", "text": "Definitely. I think you\u2019d be covered under standard due diligence language to walk if you find something that makes the purchase less appealing. Have an attorney review to confirm", "replies": [], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}, {"id": "ipa2ere", "text": "That would be a subject condition. \n\u201cThis Offer is subject to the following conditions precedent being satisfied or waived by the Purchaser on or before X date at y time:\n\nThe Purchaser, at the Purchaser\u2019s expense and sole discretion, obtains and approves an environmental report.", "replies": [{"id": "ipcd6qj", "text": "I do have that language included in a \"Property Studies\" section and also laid out in a \"Conditions Precedent\" section.  \n\n\n&amp;#x200B;\n\nI've also got language giving me the right to terminate based on new information, and the right to extend the feasibility period. Should I also add something specifying the right to reopen negotiation/discussion on pricing and terms?", "replies": [{"id": "ipdqarw", "text": "Renegotiations will come naturally afterwards. You can\u2019t force the other party to negotiate with you. You also can\u2019t lay out the terms of the negotiations before you get the report.", "replies": [], "depth": 3}], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}, {"id": "ipb38hz", "text": "You generally have a discretionary walk right during the DD period.  The question is whether you have enough time to do all of your environmental diligence during DD.  So, either include a long DD period least enough time do do a Phase I, and then maybe get an extension right in the event a Phase II is required.  Try to be sure that your investigations provision allows you to do invasive testing if the Phase I recommends it. \n\nIf you have a really good idea of what environmental  reports will show, you can include some uncapped indemnities for that specific problem.  Be mindful that your indemnitor needs to be creditworthy and often can\u2019t be the seller, for instance. if the seller is an SPE.", "replies": [{"id": "ipcbte0", "text": "So, what I've got in the PSA currently is:   \n\n\n&amp;#x200B;\n\n\"New Information.\tIf, prior to the expiration of the Feasibility Period, the parties discover information that was not previously revealed in the Documents or that is inconsistent with the Conditions Precedent, than the Feasibility Period shall, at Purchaser\u2019s election, be extended for an additional thirty (30) day period, during which time Purchaser shall evaluate such new information impacting such Conditions Precedent.\"  \n\n\n&amp;#x200B;\n\nAnd:  \n\n\n\"In the event that the inspection(s) or investigation(s) reveal a condition on, upon, under or in the Property, or with regard to Purchaser\u2019s intended use, which is unacceptable to Purchaser, Purchaser shall provide Seller with a copy of the inspection(s) or investigations(s) report(s) and provide written notice of such condition within ten (10) days of the receipt of the results or report or before expiration of the Feasibility Period, whichever is earlier.  Upon such notice, either Purchaser or Seller may elect to terminate this Agreement by notice to the other\"  \n\n\n  \nSo, I guess my question is; is there standard language I can include to indicate that new findings not only extend the feasibility period, but also potentially reopen negotiation/discussion on pricing and terms? Or is that just assumed with the wording above? (never make assumptions in contracts...)", "replies": [{"id": "ipcdzwv", "text": "The termination right gives you the ability to renegotiate.  Also, an agreement to agree is not generally enforceable anyway.  You can agree that if X occurs, the price is reduced by 10%, but you can\u2019t really agree that if X occurs, you\u2019ll agree on a new price.  \n\n\nSo, some issue comes up, you say \u201cI\u2019m going to terminate if we can\u2019t come to a resolution\u201d - and that brings everybody to the table. \n\nCaveat that I\u2019m speaking in generalities here, of course.  This is *usually* the way these things work.", "replies": [{"id": "ipcv4mw", "text": "That is really what I was curious about. In other deals I have done, that specific scenario wasn't a concern, in this case I wanted to make sure that I was covered.\n\n&amp;#x200B;\n\nI just didn't know if there was generally acceptable language to that end.", "replies": [], "depth": 4}], "depth": 3}], "depth": 2}], "depth": 1}]