Anyone can agree to anything … but enforcing that agreement is a totally different issue.
All you are doing is saying that if you do not follow through with one message board post … you agree to comply with a second message board post. Most inspectors are smart enough to see through that.
What would the member be agreeing to by signing it? Makes no sense. No reason to have members sign it.
Okay, now I’m convinced that it really is Nathan posting as Nick. :roll:
Thornberry, like most vendors who collect money for a product or service, requires a written contract that defines his terms, his liability and the duty of the inspector. Nick is resistant to one.
Message board assurances are all that some guys need and Nick is accommodating them with message board assurances, galore.
As the state official explained to me … association members have to take care of themselves. Unregulated associations, such as NACHI, can promise to do anything for its members. Inspectors who are burned will not have state regulators to turn to … only the courts. The court will look for the language of the formal agreement. What will you show them. Message board posts? LOL
Thornberry, like most vendors who collect money for a product or service, requires a written contract that defines his terms, his liability and the duty of the inspector. Nick is resistant to one, with the exception … “… InterNACHI does not guarantee or warrant the services of its members, and visitors agree that InterNACHI is not liable for the alleged acts or omissions of its members, nor may InterNACHI be held liable for damages allegedly sustained as a result of the acts or omissions of its members, regardless of the legal theories employed.”.
Message board assurances are all that some guys need and Nick is accommodating them with message board assurances, galore.
As the state official explained to me … association members have to take care of themselves. Unregulated associations, such as NACHI, can promise to do anything for its members. Inspectors who are burned will not have state regulators to turn to … only the courts. The court will look for the language of the formal agreement. What will you show them? Message board posts? FAQ pages? Logos? LOL
Other than some simple terms that participating members agree to when they first sign up, there is nothing else for them to sign.
Again, InterNACHI agrees (in writing) to indemnify participating members who get sued should we refuse to buy back a home. We aren’t asking members to indemnify InterNACHI (that would be a mutual indemnification) so we don’t need them to sign an agreement indemnifying InterNACHI. It’s a unilateral indemnification, so it is only signed by the party providing the indemnification (InterNACHI).
Okay.
You have agreed to indemnify only “participating members”, which you have not defined. Outside of a signed agreement identifying them as a “participating member” that you refuse to enter into, what does a home inspector have to show a judge that he qualifies for this secondary promise of indemnification?
The signed indemnification.
Nope.
Refrain from editing the question and answer how a home inspector is to identify himself as a participating member in the absence of a signed agreement identifying that he is a participating member in exchange for his financial consideration.
I don’t know what other evidence a member could possibly use to identify them as a currently participating member (an agreement would only provide evidence that they had participated at one time) other than their inclusion on our public list of participating members and their most recent credit card statements (past 90 days) showing they paid to participate.
That and the signed indemnification from InterNACHI is more than enough.
LOL.
For some … it is enough. I agree.
As you know, not everyone named on your list as a “participating member” is actually participating. Some have signed up simply to get information, some have tried one or two inspections and some are not intending to continue.
You have not promised to indemnify members who “have participated” … but only members who are “participating”.
How do you determine who is “participating” as opposed to those who gave you $5 once or twice and decided to cut their losses?
Why avoid a contract that would set all of this in stone?
Obviously.
Participating members enter the street address (but not full address as per our Privacy Policy: we only collect just enough information to identify the property later) of each home inspection they perform as a participating inspector, it is time stamped, and their credit card is processed for $5 on that day. These recorded transactions not only identify them as participating but can confirm the inspected home as well.
You explained why. A contract is only evidence that the member was participating at the time the contract was executed… or as you put it, it would only demonstrate that the member “had participated” once.
Furthermore, a unilateral indemnification doesn’t need the signature of the indemnified party. What would the participating member be agreeing to anyway? An indemnification only requires that the party providing the indemnification sign (agree to provide indemnification). You can print it off and sign it if it makes you feel better.
Nonsense, but debate is unnecessary. Prudent inspectors know what to do.
But, out of curiosity … if when an inspector pays $5 to you for an inspection he did, today … he is a participating member for how long? When does his promise of indemnification expire?
Nonsense, but debate is unnecessary. Prudent inspectors know what to do.
But, out of curiosity … if/when an inspector pays $5 to you for an inspection he did, today … he is a participating member for how long? When does his promise of indemnification expire? At what undefined, vague and ambiguous point does he turn from a “participating” member to a member who “participated”?
Does it cover a client buying a condo/town-home unit?
Thanks,
Carl
91 days after the closings on all the properties you entered.
Yes.
BTW: The signed indemnification is on InterNACHI letterhead in a downloadable PDF available from the link in the answer regarding indemnification found in the Frequently Asked Questions page at: www.nachi.org/buy-faq.htm
So … on 90 days after the last entered home closes … the home buyer files a claim that you refuse to pay. On the 91st day, you drop the home inspector from your “participating member” list. On the 100th day, the home inspector is notified that he is being sued for your denial of the claim.
Is he screwed … or do you need to make another message board amendment on the fly?