Nick - Agreement for Review

Thanks Nick for your assistance and offer to review - looking forward to feedback.

I’ll re-post your agreement first:

I don’t like this line in your agreement

as it implies that all visible defects are included in the inspection.

Your agreement #1 is titled:

and your agreement #4 is titled:

This reads awkwardly to me. They should be combined IMHO or at least sequential.

This is simply not true, even if you say it’s the case in your contract. If you author documents that conflict (agreement and purchase order, for example) the consumer may rely on whichever he/she prefers.

This is rarely going to happen and even if it does, the 1% only adds up to pennies. I would remove it, if for no other reason, to keep the agreement short, clean, and with less legalese.

It is odd that you have your signature line near the top of the agreement. Move it to the bottom. If I were your client I could argue that my signature only represents that I read everything up until it and not anything after it.

You use the word “realtor.”

  1. It is spelled “REALTOR.”
  2. Only about 1/2 of all real estate agents are REALTORs (members of the National Association of REALTORs).
  3. You don’t specify which agent(s). The buyer’s agent or the seller’s agent or both.

Regarding your SOP your agreement states:

Your first reference merely says that you’ve provided the Wisconsin Standards, not that the parties are agreeing you’ll use them.

Your second reference to the standards can be any of a number of them.

Pick one.

Furthermore, you define the “Standards” in your second reference to them. You should define it in your first reference.

But you are an insurer of the defects in the structure, items, components, and systems that you didn’t inspect?

Drop the “inspected” word from the end of that sentence.

Why are you including this in your agreement? If you can’t limit your liability by law… don’t. What is the purpose of explaining to your client that you can’t? Worse, you titled your explanation that you can’t limit your liability: “LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.” Get rid of all of it.

In your #3 you state:

Then you say it again in #9:

You are repeating yourself.

That isn’t true and saying so doesn’t make it true, so I would delete this useless legalese.

If you really insist on having this in there, presumably for when the agent signs on behalf of the client, then remove the word “corporate” and just use “approvals” which would then cover corporate approvals.

Why would you put this in your agreement? This clause benefits your client way more than you. Your client only has one performance duty… to pay you.

Your inspection agreement (any agreement between two parties) doesn’t bind other people. Saying so doesn’t make it true. Other people may rely on your report (doesn’t mean you have a duty to them) and an agreement between you and your client doesn’t change that. I see no purpose in stating this, even though we have something similar in InterNACHI’s agreement (because members like it in there).

That is absurd. I recommend that no consumer sign your agreement.

This statement is in direct conflict with InterNACHI’s assertion that a home inspection doesn’t and can’t reveal every defect. You’ve essentially defined your home inspection service in a way that makes it impossible for you to ever fulfill your duty.

Why did you find it necessary to explain to your client that the 2-year limitation can’t be changed by a home inspector’s agreement? Not necessary since you aren’t changing it. Delete second (last) line.

And this has what to do with your client? A: Nothing. Remove it. You don’t have to tell them that someone else can’t sue you by state law and your client can’t agree (on behalf of that someone) that someone won’t sue you anyway.