It is inconcievable that there would be any law in any state that would consider an agreement to be valid that was initiated AFTER the service was rendered…particularly when it includes disclaimers, limitations and other restrictions … where the purchaser was denied an opportunity to be made aware or to understand these restrictions prior to entering into the agreement. Such would be immediately considered as unconscionable conduct and render the contract void, IMO.
That is what makes including such information in the report as a waste of time since, for all practical purposes, it actually provides documented proof that the service was provided prior to the purchaser’s understanding of any disclaimer. Will I get a full refund if I read the disclaimer in my copy of the report and call the inspector informing him that I do not agree to the terms?
Thanks Jim, that is as I thought also. Isn’t that why many years ago (25?) a law was created for door-to-door sales? Gives the homeowner 3 days to back out of an agreement without penalty?
Cheap shameless plug for me. Buy my INACHI 3D form set it has the SOPs in it and it tells the client what you are to inspect, what you inspected and what you do not inspect.
Thank you for posting this (unknown source) quote:
It actually helps prove my point.
Bottom line is,whether in Florida or not, anyone contemplating this (as Joe mentioned, everyone should be) should seek legal advice from their own Attorney. Never take another persons non-qualified opinion for fact. And we all know not to trust the government’s opinion of their own laws.
I am sure across the country, they are all similar.
To answer your question, as is the case very often here in Florida, a hastily and poorly written law leaves much open to determination.
Here is what it says: Prior to contracting for or commencing.
That could be right before the inspection. Legally, I would guess, and an attorney would know for sure, it is probably something along the lines of what would be considered a “reasonable” amount of time, more than likely, 24 hours would suffice.
Regardless of the time frame, once the contract is signed, it is binding. That is why I posted the paragraph above, more specifically, this:
And my whole point in all my postings, is that, in my opinion, an inspector who does not present the required information to the potential client giving them sufficient time to review, and winds-up in court, will most likely lose for that single point alone.
Tell me that a judge would not be sympathetic to a client/plaintiff stating: “I had to sign the contract without reading and fully understanding it in advance. I didn’t see the contract until at the inspection and the inspector wanted to get started, and I didn’t have any time left to get another inspector. I felt under duress, and didn’t know what else to do”.
It has been my experience that Judges generally do not take that approach. There is an adage that goes something like this, Ignorance of the law is not a defense".
A judge would most likely say, either you read the contract and signed it or didn’t read the contract and signed it, in which case you are a fool.
Duress generally involves a little bit more than “feeling compelled to do something, or being left without another option”. Now, if the inspector pulled out a gun and threatened to shoot the Clients child, that would be duress, among other things.
I think the pivotal point of this issue is an inspector’s desire or attempt to enforce a particular “disclaimer” that is blended in with a variety of “disclaimers” crowded together on a document.
Of course a judge would enforce the obvious…such as the agreement made by the client to pay and the agreement made by the inspector to inspect. No getting out of that.
The point I addressed is related to an inspector including in his report … a document that is prepared AFTER the negotiation and AFTER the purchaser had an opportunity to refuse or renegotiate … that there were limitations, restrictions, or other caveats not addressed PRIOR to the inspection. Putting them in a report and NOT in a document signed prior to the inspection defies common sense, IMO.
In this case, the “disclaimers” are absolutely worthless and unenforceable and the very fact that they are provided in the report, a document created AFTER the inspection, is all the purchaser needs to provide as evidence that he had no opportunity to know or understand these “disclaimers” prior to hiring the inspector.
The law states we must provide a “written disclosure that contains scope and any exclusions of the home inspection”. In my opinion item #2 of the Internach agreement DOES NOT accomplish this. It simply references the SOP and provides the web address - you didn’t provide the actual scope or exclusions to your client and you are GUILTY. I’m sure a lawyer would have a field day on this point. I think a seperate detailed disclosure with your license is what must be sent- like other members have stated. Just my opinin.
I agree. A link to the information is not the same as a written provision of information since, at some future date, the link could possibly be to information that did not exist at the time of the original inspection.
You lost me. InterNACHI’s online inspection agreement system is … online. From that agreement system you can reference the SOP by linking to it, online. If you want to add any other disclosures, our online agreement system makes that easy to do, but those disclosures will also be online.
I agree completely, and is one of the points I was getting at. Taking a short cut by sending a link is not abiding the law. Links go bad. Links get hacked. Link content changes. If you are going to send a link, you can send the full text and license. Some are just lazy, looking for shortcuts, and only willing to do the bare minimun. Are we not professional businessmen/women? Sometimes I wonder, but I suspect I have my answer.
Thanks for showingg your contract there. I’ve been using Nachi’s electronic system about 95% of the time. Wondering if you do these 9 pages electronically or just use hard copies everytime? The online system is awfully convenient although I’m not sure how well it would hold up in court(another post). Seems like 9 pages is a lot to present prior to an inspection, although I understand it is completely necessary - I do like your format.
I e mail them to the Client prior to the inspection all filled out, name address, etc.
All they have to to is read and sign.
I carry a spare with me in case they forget their copy.
Some, who know how, digitally sign them and then send them back to me.
There’s no reason you couldn’t do the same as Eric with the NACHI on line agreement. You can provide the whole long form spelled out SOP just by copy and pasting into your agreement instead of linking to it. Then you could also print it out to take with you as Eric does. now you have the convenience of the agreement system and the thoroughness of Eric’s way.
You guys have me bewildered. You do realize that to get to your online agreement or your report or even your website… your client has to click on a link. How is there a difference between providing a link to the SOP in your agreement and providing a link to the SOP? I’m still lost.
Unless you are saying that something must be provided by paper (snail mail) before an inspection is performed… is that what anyone is suggesting?