Breach of Client Privacy

It was requested that we post this informative article, onBreach of Client Privacy, in the public forum.

For those who don’t want their information shared with third party entities.

](http://trustyourinspector.org/)
**Trust Your Inspector
**

Our commitment to you.
Home inspectors who take this pledge promise to never provide their clients personal information to any third party vendors for free or for consideration of kickbacks, money or other monetary gain of any kind.

                                   **From our experience.**
        We know the challenges home inspection businesses face  today.  Our commitment to you, our clients, is to offer you trustworthy  home inspectors to chose from who do not sell barter or provide for free  their clients personal contact information to any third party service  providers.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

Once again you choose to walk a fine line with violating the Code of Ethics.

I beg you to offer proof of any of the discriminating claims you posted above.

You don’t offer any proof when this blowhard makes his ridiculous claims.

You can’t handle the truth.

You have sold out to someone who promises you the moon.

Good luck.

What does your comment have to do with what Nathan said?..nothing.

I’ve sold out to no one, never will.

I don’t worry about how other’s run their business because I could care less.

When someone makes claims that I am a crooked or dishonest I would like to see the proof of these claims.

Still not one complaint from a client either. Hmmm…

From Juan’s website:

Not true, but if Juan and Nathan say so, then it must be true… but onward. Perfidy? Impressive…

A true statement.

There is no “creation”, nor any “illusion” of danger

Who is "we? This is a Nathanism, is suppose…

Then the answer is simple. Since both Juan and Pledge takers allegedly share the same reality, then why not agree, in writing and in the public view, than if it is discovered that an inspector receives consideration for providing a client’s personal information (including name and address, etc) to any third party, absent of disclosing who that third party is, that said inspector admits he has committed a fraudulent act?

The key to all of this is the term “consideration”

For any of you who have agreed to terms of any sort of contract where there is no consideration, the courts will generally consider the contract null and void. Ask any competent attorney. So, the question becomes one of consideration. For a contract to be enforceable, there must be consideration. Consideration hinges on the exchange of a promise for something of value. I promise to pay if you provide a car worth $xxx. I promise to give you XXX names in exchange for 5 widgets. It does not matter what a person charges for an item. The value of the item is what is at issue. If the item has no value, there is no consideration. This is where folks miss the mark.

Whether you pay for something, or barter, or get it for free in exchange for something, it constitutes consideration.

So, if (hypothetically) a client’s information is provided to a third party, in exchange for a widget, product, service, or whatever… there is consideration. The nonsense that a “benefit” passes directly to the client is only valid if the contract is directly between the client and that vendor, thusly eliminating their third party status.

As to knowledge and consent, it was only after Nick changed the proposed verbiage to the revised COE that the clients of a certain vendor remained compliant.

So, considering that actions of some remain within the guidelines established by the COE… it fails to negate the FACT that where there is consideration it is technically a payment. And, where there is payment, there is a distinct difference between those who are willing to take the CFP, and others who choose not to.

As to Juan’s website, it is well written. Beyond that, he may say that those who agree to Pledge are minimalists. He looks foolish doing so.

Squirm? I think not.

The very best thing that Mr. Thornberry could ever do to bring attention to the Client Fidelity Pledge is to knock it. For that, I thank him… and YOU, Juan.

Discussing it in a public forum only raises awareness. Since it is not advertised or hawked, every knock is a boost.

www.trustyourinspector.org

Awesome.

You will never get an internet coward to defend their claims with proof. Whatever positive influence was once provided by those who continue to malign the character of fellow NACHI members is becoming increasingly diminished by their lies and half truths to the general public. Their constant sniping on here is an irrelevant and transparent annoyance. I wish they would take it elsewhere, maybe to ASHI.

Consideration is irrelevant. The client chooses and gives permission. Take it up with them.

You made up your minds and then a pledge which claims something is unethical when it is not. Juan’s assessment is dead on. It is the most dry and brittle of strawmen.

Ditto.

Like any good gimmick, it needs all the help it can get.

Thank you, only those guilty of the perfidy, would disagree.

I beg to argue. Juan’s assessment is NOT dead on.

This snippet is way off base, with Zero facts to prove it.

Unwilling to offer 90 warranties and appliance recal checks through a third a party vendor does make a professional a bare minimum inspector. That is far from the truth.

I guess you know how I feel when a vendor threatens your business because you refuse to purchase his products… Take two asprins and call me in the morning. :roll:

I doubt you understand the meaning of the word.

I wonder how many of your intended audience do.

Fahgettaboudit… P. Nathan Snollygoster, is not allowed to spread his bull**** on the A$HI website, he could never get away with disparaging home inspectors like he does here. :roll:

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.