If you believe you have a claim against us, you agree to provide us with the following: (1) written notification of adverse conditions within 14 days of discovery; and (2) access to the premises. Failure to comply with these conditions releases us from liability.
Mine says:
**within 7 days of discovery, immediate access to the premises
**client shall have no cause of action against inspector after 60 days from the date of inspection
May not hold up, haven’t checked the Florida statutes regarding mandatory time limits for this type of work.
I agree that it should be only one page. The client’s perception of more than one page can make him suspicious.
I still use the original NACHI PIA and consider it to be “plain English”.
Just the same, I think #4 is missing a few disclaimers. Here’s what I have in my PIA.
The Home Inspection report does not cover (unless specifically stated):
underground utilities * playground equipment * fuel tanks* the suitability of the property for any specialized use * wells/springs *
cosmetic items * drain fields * the market value of the property or its marketability * solar systems * security systems * personal property
the methods, materials and costs of corrections* underground items * sprinkler systems * cesspools * any component or system which
was not observed * pools * central vacuum systems* life expectancy of any component or system * septic systems* detached structures * water treatment systems* the advisability or inadvisability of purchase of the property * elevators * defects unobserved * code compliance * items not permanently installed * environmental hazards * fuel quality * chimneys/flues *the cause of the need for repair * The presence or absence of pests such as wood damaging organisms, rodents, or insects.
NOTE: This agreement pertains to the home inspection only - WDI (Wood Destroying Insect ) Inspections, Radon tests & other add on services performed will be in separate reports and do not apply to this agreement.
Mark, I haven’t read the entire agreement yet but on #2 you wrote" **that we both observed" **The actual client that signs the agreement is not always present for the inspection. Sometimes none is there, sometimes the agent, wife friend, contractor…etc… Just sayin.
The “Plain English” language movement is gathering steam and courts are beginning to look favorably on companies that offer their contracts in Plain English. The fine print listed on http://www.nachi.org/buy.htm is another example.
Nobody wins when the lawyers make it so hard to read that only lawyers understand it. We are decades behind on reform to our legal system as contracts have become so obtuse and ponderous up to dozens of pages for certain things we agree to. Its time we took back our rights to buy and sell services for contracts we understand.
That leaves out the occasional idiot who likes paying lawyers to confuse everyone and turn everything into a stressful event.
mcohen
(Mark Cohen, InterNACHI General Counsel and Corporate Secr)
31
Thanks for the additional comments.
In paragraph No. 2, the “both” was intended to mean that the inspector (1) observed it and (2) deemed it material, but I have clarified that.
I have changed paragraph 8 to say 7 days and immediate access to the premises. I highly doubt a 60 day limit on bringing an action would hold up in court. Not even sure a one year limit will hold up, but the odds are better.
I will email an updated version of it to Nick right now and he will add it to the system to replace the old InterNACHI agreement.
I will write a separate article on some of the benefits on Plain English.
Thanks again for all your help. As always, modify the agreement as you deem appropriate.
