[JamesSwift]

Thats not quite the analogy, and the differences are important.

If twitter was a house he was buying, the analogy is he waived his right to a house inspection and highlighted that fact in numerous ways to attain either a more favorable price (since there won't be post-deal negotiation on anything he finds and decides to argue) or to make Twitter more likely to accept. Or a combination of both. And in addition to that, in your offer to buy the house you also made legally binding statements that "I have been able to inquire about anything I might be concerned with about the home, and have been given answers and opportunity to find my answers on those questions, and as a result I am fully satisfied with how that transpired".

The only possible way to then get a home inspection is that you also included a clause that the deal is contingent on a loan being used and its possible that the loan may require certain information or processes. Now, if as a side-effect of getting that loan, a home inspection is required and if that home inspection causes the _bank_ to back out of financing then that is now possibly a cause to break the contract. Even this isnt fully accurate in this case though. Because there were specific guarantees and public statements made around financing that 1) the financing is already lined up (i.e. not contingent on an inspection) and 2) even if that fell through Musk would have the available capital to close the deal.