[onetwo_threefour]

It's doubtful that this would have been written as a 'condition' and even if it was, a court would likely interpret it as a term which would not give you the right to refuse to close but only to sue for damages after a breach. It is not likely a serious enough issue to be construed as a condition unless it creates a structural risk. If it is only a term, there is no need to waive or satisfy it in order to close the deal.

In order to sue though, you can't be in breach, meaning that you need to pay for the property before pursuing compensation.

New Home Warranty does not likely apply since it is a renovation, so you need to deal with the developer directly. (At least I've never run into a condo reno project with ANHW coverage)

Developers' lawyers will often take the 'no holdbacks' position, and unless you wrote holdbacks into your contract at the outset, your lawyer can't force the developer to accept holdbacks at closing. Having said that, in most cases Realtors don't write holdbacks into contracts because it makes Sellers less likely to accept an offer. I don't think it's a bad idea for holdbacks to be written into these renovation deals precisely because there is no New Home Warranty coverage. It's kind of an issue of 20/20 hindsight in some respects though, and there's no guarantee that the developer would have agreed to a holdback.

I would say that the advice you're being given so far by your Realtor and lawyer does not seem bad, and I do think you have an uphill battle because of the wording of the term. It's possible that your Realtor may have some liability to you for not addressing your concerns adequately in phrasing the term, but you will really need a proper legal opinion to go any farther. I'm only commenting based on the original post in this thread and there are many factors that could affect my advice to you. If the builder did go and 'tighten the joists' they've probably satisfied their obligations under a term worded in that way. The fact that you may have discussed the movement in the floor would likely be held to be irrelevant since all terms in a contract for the sale of land must be in writing and the Court will generally not allow evidence as to a parties verbal discussions of the terms of the contract as evidence. I don't think a term that says "tighten floor joists" will be interpreted as "make floor silent" especially since there was no time pressure on the Realtor when writing that term.