Originally Posted By: rray This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
bsumpter wrote:
AB293:
Quote:
(3)To offer or deliver any compensation, inducement, or reward to
the owner of the inspected property, the broker, or agent, for the
referral of any business to the inspector or the inspection company.
I believe it's talking about the owner of the property while it is for sale, like offering something to the owner for referring a prospective Client to you. One that Client is your Client, and you have done the inspection for him, he has closed escrow, and moved in, at that point, there is nothing for sale anymore.
It could be a gray area, but that is a gray area that I would be definitely be willing to test. Marketing to one's Clients is part and parcel of the whole basis of free enterprise, I think.
Originally Posted By: rray This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I think it’s kind of like our Supreme Court justices.
There is Clarence Thomas who wants to ignore the fact that the world has evolved in 230 years (cars, planes, cell phones, nuclear bombs, etc.) and read the Constitution literally, word by word.
Then there are the other justices who try to determine what the Constitution (or the Constitution's authors) would try to say [the intent] about cars, planes, cell phones, nuclear bombs, etc.).
Here, I think you are reading the words literally while I am trying to determine the intent of the author.
I don't think its the intent of the author/sponsors to prevent home inspectors from marketing to past Clients, regardless of which, or how many, properties they own.
Originally Posted By: pdoesburg This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
So, are you for or against it?
So far as “enticements”, they are illegal. Period. Regardless of what you are, you may not offer an enticement to a realtor during the course of business, you may not offer an enticement to a homeowner because it will bias your opinion, you should not offer an incentive to your clients as a means for their income or recouping their fee, it will get you in to trouble. If you are good, ask for a referral. I still do not hink $50 will make a difference on a $600000 purchase, the realtor gets a commision check thats 1800 times that amount, the homeowner is spending 12000 times that amount. Offer a free meal at In n Out for two, but no cash back.
Originally Posted By: pdoesburg This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
I am great RR. I hope you are fairing well as well…
Definitively, you are right, giving anything t get something would be, but if you are giving away something that you can get a coupon in the local paper for, or soemthing equivalent, then it will not viewed in the same light as “cash for service”. But right is right, an enticement is an enticement, even if jbushart’s daughter makes it.
I am for 293 btw, lesser of two evils. Disclose versus CSLB governance… I’ll disclose.
Originally Posted By: jbushart This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
California is slow in updating their database. Nothing posted, yet, on what happened to the bill in your Judicial Committee today. What’s the scuttlebutt on this? Is it supposed to pass?
