Originally Posted By: jcahill
This post was automatically imported from our archived forum.
Just some words to stimulate discussion. You stated:
"Nevertheless, some courts may uphold limitation of liability clauses where the parties are of equal sophistication and the limitation of liability clause is actually bargained for between the parties. "
I believe that the most important concept I communicate is that I will not find all the problems or pay for misses with a cursory home inspection. I simply tell the truth very plainly and guarantee if they are unhappy at the conclusion they owe me nothing.
I have offered a comprehensive inspection as an option. It comes with a guarantee that if I miss anything in the SoP they can file a claim with my E&O provider. The buyer initials:
--- I want the less expensive inspection understanding it will not find all problems or pay for errors.
--- I want the more expensive inspection understanding it is protected by an E&O policy.
Of course there is more to it than this (such as NACHI dispute resolution to determine violation of the SoP) but my main question is:
Does offering a clearly defined alternate product for a clearly defined alternate price constitute reasonable negotiation?
I see a problem in this industry to be the expectation that inspectors will find it all or pay for what they miss. This unrealistic belief is subscribed to by inspectors, trade associations, realtors and consumers. If every inspector simply tells the truth then perhaps the expectation of the consumer will be tempered.
I have more good discussion questions forthcoming.