James Bushart writes:
First, I’ve never read the clause. I’ve never commented on the clause (because I’ve never read it). And so I couldn’t have promoted the clause (or any clause that I’ve never read or commented on). Nevertheless, can you explain why you believe the clause is not compliant with #7 of www.nachi.org/code_of_ethics.htm please?
Nick would you mind answering this request Jim Bushart posted, that may have got lost in the shuffle?
Tell me who this information is being sold to, please. Explicitly.
You are promoting a service that requires each participating inspector to include this clause in their contract. You started a thread to debate the objection to this clause.
You never read it?
Also don’t forget that some vendors take the client information and then sub it out to other third parties or sell it or trade ot, and then who knows what happens all the way down the chain. I can guarantee you the client doesn’t.
Jim
Correct. I cannot comment on that clause because I very intentionally refuse to fully read it.
I see you have confused with #7 b. with #7 a. though. Let me help you. The clause you reference is in writing. #7 b. requires permission to be given in writing. However, #7 a., which requires the inspector to make the client aware of what information will be released, to whom, and for what purpose, does not require the inspector to make his/her client aware of those things in writing. Therefore if the clause you reference doesn’t do that in writing, the inspector hasn’t necessarily violated our COE. In other words, although the inspector needs permission to release the information in writing, the inspector can make the client aware of what information is being released, where the information is going, and the purpose of its release…verbally. If I was a home inspector, that’s how I would want to do it. I’d want to explain it all verbally for my client and then also get permission in writing from my client. Like I’ve said before, #7 is beautiful.
I’m glad I could clear that up for you. Gotta run. Great discussion guys. I’ll be back on tomorrow. Sleepy.
Tell me, Nick … explicitly … who is the inspector who is using this clause in his contract actually providing the client’s personal contact information to? Third request.
If the client does not know … explicitly … who is receiving their personal contact information … where is their explicit consent to provide it to a named recipient as required in your Rule #7?
As you stumble to parse, squeeze and implicate meaning into your Rule #7 and attempt to apply it favorably toward a clause that you have never read, let me take this time to remind inspectors that the Client Fidelity Pledge is taken and promoted by inspectors who promise not to use this and similar language in their contracts.
How can you justify NOT reading a very important clauser that a vendor that solicits your NACHI members on a daily basis on your board, contractually requires all their NACHI users to add some shady at best verbage into all their Client Agreements? that’s nuts…
Jim
Nick writes
Then who the hell wrote it and who the hell approved it?
Unbelievable!!!
As you stumble to parse, squeeze and implicate meaning into your Rule #7 and attempt to apply it favorably toward a clause that you have never read, let me take this time to remind inspectors that the Client Fidelity Pledge is taken and promoted by inspectors who promise not to use this and similar language in their contracts.
Inspectors who use this or similar language in their contracts should not take the Client Fidelity Pledge or they may get into some serious trouble with their state officials.
LMAO…its like Ground hogs day in here.
Let me make this super simple…Nick and Nathan are not going to change
Jim, Jim, Jim, and Joe are not going to change…
So what is the arguing about? Views are not going to change…Let it be…let it be…let it be…O let it be…whisper words of wisdom…let it be…
You have your pledge…its not part of NACHI…No one can stop it…what’s the big brouhaha about? It is what it is…
You’ll have to ask this question to the guy who started a thread to debate objections to a contract clause that he never read.
It’s Friday after midnight and rusty is feeling no pain. :roll:
With that information I think I’m going to start doing my inspection agreement verbally, it’d sure save a lot of time an hassle.
LMAO…Rusty doesn’t really drink…or smoke…
But Rusty is getting ready for an 8 day vacation out of the country tomorrow AM…So I am pretty energized…
Hopefully you return well rested and with a clearer mind.
Hey Nick another question just popped up for you or maybe better suited for Mark Cohen. How does he feel Legally about simply getting verbal remission from clients to release their data to third party vendors for some form of compensation. How would that verbal consent hold up when everything else was in writing but that release of their private information was verbal?
Jim
There’s really nothing wrong with that clause at all. What about it is so problematic? And why do you ask who the TPSP is when you and the clients both already know?
Not anyone at InterNACHI. I’m going to go way out on a limb and guess that it is a vendor suggested clause. InterNACHI doesn’t author clauses for vendors. And InterNACHI doesn’t approve them either. Why is that unbelievable to you?