A question for those using the phrase "hiding it in your contract."

I have a question for those using the phrase “hidden in your contract.”

Do you consider the clause to be “hidden” simply because it shares a common sheet of physical paper with other clauses in your contract?

If your answer is yes (a clause is hidden when it is before, after, or between other clauses)… aren’t you in fact arguing that every clause in your contract should be on a separate sheet of paper?

Again, how many times have you seen a customer read a several page contract in full?

That is why I switched to a one page contract. Seldom will somebody read a contract thoroughly past two pages. Very long home inspection reports are the same way.

So James, are you saying that a clause before, after, or between other clauses isn’t hidden if all the clauses are on the same page?

Correct. Do not stick a clause on the third page and expect the customer to pay attention to it. If you keep your contract short and to the point a person’s mind will comprehend it better. Just like Nathan just reading a couple sentences of a post and then dismissing it if he is not interested.

So James, are you saying that a clause isn’t hidden if it is on the first or second page of a contract?

Yes, but how many inspection contracts do you see that are only one or two pages. Look at the contract your buddy Mike pushes.

InterNACHI’s inspection contract is less than two pages long, which according to you means that every clause in it and every clause added to it that doesn’t cause the contract length to exceed two pages… is not a hidden clause.

Thank you.

Nick … what did you mean when you wrote this?

Does this mean … to you … that the consent for the release of his information is “explicit” and that his consent is “written” when he signs a home inspection contract agreeing to allow his home inspector to inspect a home in accordance to the NACHI SOP for a fee of $400 at a particular address and the agreement contains a clause that does not provide for the home buyer to acknowledge that he read it and agreed to it or that identifies who the information is being provided to?

Too bad only a few inspectors use the NACHI contract, without adding a bunch of more disclaimers in it. It is has been awhile since you actually been off of that mountain and been in the trenches with your members, has it, Nick?

Jim Bushart (Two Jim B’s on this thread), to answer your question: Explicit means stated clearly. So yes, IMHO it is possible to state something clearly in a home inspection contract.

BTW: Going offline for a couple hours. I’ll come back to this very interesting discussion. Thank you both.

“Your inspector may have an affiliation with a third party service provider (“TPSP”) in order to offer you additional value-added services. By entering into this agreement you (a) authorize your inspector to provide your contact information (including telephone number) to the TPSP, (b) waive and release any restrictions that may prevent the TPSP from contacting you (including by telephone), and © authorize the TPSP to contact you (including by telephone) regarding special home alarm system offers.”

Tell me who this information is being sold to, please. Explicitly.

Nick even you posted in your original COE revision and posted I believe that the client had to sign on a separate page their permission to release their information. Then after Nathan talked to you you retracted that Great Idea.


As you know, I’m not a big fan of your COE revision, Nick … but the clause that I posted does not even comply with your revised requirement — and you are promoting it.

Again, why is NACHI endorsing telemarketing?

Jim Bushart claims:

Can you point to an example of me promoting a clause please?

James Braun claims:

Can you point to an example of InterNACHI endorsing telemarketing please?

Home inspectors who do not add this or similar language to their inspection agreements can set themselves apart from those who do by participating with the Client Fidelity Pledge.

The public will be able to choose inspectors who sell their information to third parties, if they wish to … or select a qualified inspector who will not.

James K claims:

Both statements you made are false.

When you promote Nathan Thornberry’s alarm lead program … which you have … you are promoting this clause that his contract requires every participating inspector to use and that is not compliant with your Rule #7.

The new COE encourages that. A COE allows inspectors to sell their client’s information to telemarketers. If the COE did not allow this, I could not say this.

So James Braun, you are making the claim that anything InterNACHI’s COE doesn’t prohibit, it endorses?