The first sentence is true. The second is false. A seller of a property need not disclose such items if he/she doesn’t know about them. One has no duty to disclose that which one has no knowledge of.
“in additions to?” I think you mean “in addition to.”
Also, how would legal counsel or a real estate agent identify items subject to disclosure?
Interesting concept based on age of the structure.
You just told me the exact opposite. Furthermore, Who must mark them as such? Are you telling your client to mark them as such or are you explaining to your client that you have no choice but to mark them as such?
#2 of your contract reads:
But not you personally, just your company?
I wouldn’t waste contract space telling your client they have to assure you that you can enter the property to inspect the property. You are already getting that assurance by virtue of them hiring you and scheduling the inspection. Overkill IMHO.
Over-overkill. What damages could someone claim in the 1 in a million chance that you didn’t have permission to inspect the property anyway? That you peeked at their furnace filter? No need for this.
Only permits after it was built? But don’t check to see if the home was permitted to begin with?
What “Order Form?” Do you mean this “Inspection Contract?” You titled this document: “Inspection Contract” so “Order Form” must be referring to some other document.
Making untrue statements doesn’t make them true.
But happy sellers don’t change anything?
Also, you are missing punctuation at end of that sentence.
So not only are you inspecting to the “Sandia Home Inspection Standards of Practice” (which I’ve never heard of) instead of an industry standard, you don’t even furnish a copy? Your client has to request this unknown SOP separately?
We’re only on #7 of 11 and we’re agreeing to have read something and accepting it?
Also, who is “I” in this sentence? “I” meaning you Chris Franklin? That’s how it reads.
Also, how does one "accept the Terms and Conditions of an inspection? An inspection doesn’t have terms and conditions. An inspection contract does.
Also, you mention a fourth secret document “The Waiver Conditions.” What is that and where is it? Where are all these documents you’ve mentioned?: Items subject to disclosure, The Order Form, The Sandi Home Inspection Standards of Practice and now The Waiver Conditions.
So I can’t show my wife the report?
Again, saying something untrue doesn’t make it true.
Why are you telling us about some fact about our country’s legal system in an inspection agreement? This statement isn’t anything your client needs to agree to, to be true so why is it in here?
Makes no sense. Why has “… for the purpose of inspecting the subject home.” has been added to that paragraph? How can the client’s agreement to hold someone harmless be for the purpose of inspecting the subject’s home? One doesn’t need to hold someone harmless for the purpose of performing an inspection.
Also, you can’t exonerate someone from a loss. You can exonerate them from blame. You can exonerate them from an obligation. You can reimburse them for a loss.
How is this not a repeat of your #7 where you stated the following?:
So only the inspection report is somehow made null and void, but the inspection contract remains in force?
Nick to be honest I’m ashamed of how awful my inspection agreement WAS and grateful for you pointing all of this out to me. My area of expertise is not in this kind of stuff so I do appreciate you taking time out of your night to help me out. Like I said I will be using the agreement InterNACHI has already put together.