I’m sure this question has been asked many times before and I apologize. I am no lawyer but it would seem to me that a pre-listing agreement would, or should differ from a standard insp agree to provide adequate liability protection. With the current condition of the market I am just starting to get requests for pre-list insp. I have had to politely turn them away because I do not feel my agreement or the NACHI agreement will adequately protect me from the pit falls that seem obvious to me.
Can anyone tell me where I can find examples of pre-listing agreements or does NACHI have one that I’m not aware of so I might take advantage of this source of inspections.
Robert,
Whether it is a pre listing or pre purchase I always use the same agreement.
Always seemed to me I’m inspecting the condition of the building at the time of the inspection, it says that in my agreement, and in my reports.
So I just use the same old, same old.
“This report was written for the condition of the property at the time of this inspection, not tomorrow”
Yes, Dale has it well defined.
I concur…
Are you interested in a MIC-style inspection program or just vanilla pre-listing inspections that are simply for the seller’s information?
I don’t see any pitfalls with the vanilla pre-listings but I wouldn’t touch the MIC style stuff without a contract that clearly defines the purpose of the program and how the report and its findings can and can’t be used. And I would steer clear of statements such as “this home is certified by the seller to be free of major defects and safety hazards”.
I am not familiar with MIC-type inspections but, Nick you know what I’m getting at. Even the so called vanilla insp should, in my opinion be defined in the standard contact as how it can be used.
The disclaimer for this goes in the report, not the agreement, as the new buyer is not a party to the agreement you have with the seller.
Here ya go:
A nice little disclaimer for pre-listing inspection reports:
“Note: Just as no two home inspectors and no two reporting systems are alike, no two inspection reports, even if performed on the same property at the same time, are alike. This pre-listing inspection report was performed for my client, the home seller, with the cooperation and assistance of my client/home seller. It assumes full disclosure on the part of my client/home seller. My client may choose to share my report with others, but it was performed solely for my client. And although ABC Inspections performs all inspections and writes all reports objectively without regard to the client’s personal interests, additional fresh inspections, which of course would reveal and report matters differently, should be considered.”
I agree as well but you will find that most on this board are convinced that the 1 page InterNACHI agreement and a waiver statement placed in a section in which few will read covers all the bases.
I too do not see a simple disclosure statement in a report that wasn’t specifically ratified in the contract is going to hold up successfully in court when a buyer’s lawyer charges that you staged a home defect-free-certified with a MIC sign when it was found to have a major material defect that was not addressed by the seller. I imagine not using any implied “certification” of the property’s overall condition coupled with a simple clause that dictates that the report is simply for disclosure purposes, not as a certification of any conditions or to supplant a home inspection, and that the client is obligated to communicate this would do fine. The MIC program performed with the use of the InterNACHI agreement may hold up against such a claim by spinning all of the clauses in the contract and pointing to a waiver statement but I sure wouldn’t wager my livelihood on it …
InterNACHI’s agreements all state something about the inspection report being supplemental to the seller’s disclosure. In other words, InterNACHI members who use InterNACHI’s agreements generate reports that are not stand-alone documents but rather merely supporting documentation to what the seller had a legal duty to disclose. Smooth, huh?
And BTW… the MIC program does not now, nor has it ever certified a home to be defect free, no home is defect free. I don’t know where that one came from but not from us.
What ever happened to just being honest and straight forward??:roll: :roll:
How would InterNACHI publishing an agreement which required its members to become detectives and uncover seller fraud, and tricked consumers who incorrectly believed that fraud discovery is part of a home inspection, be honest and straight forward?
I don’tknow.
When I see “smooth huh” reminds me of a sleezy car sales person that just screwed a customer over for a few thousand $ss:twisted: :twisted:
I think of all the “rough” times non-members have when they lose thousands in court with their dumb agreements that imply that a home inspector’s job is to uncover seller fraud.
The disclaimer for this goes in the report, not the agreement, as the new buyer is not a party to the agreement you have with the seller.
Nick, Just want to make sure we have your permission to plagiarize your disclaimer.
Karl,
In the future, if you see a disclaimer or other sort of HI agreement openly displayed on this MB by Nick, feel free to plagararize the information. Nick places this information here for all iNACHI Members to utilize.
Just wanted to make sure, I don’t take anything for granted any more. I got a red square from some chicken for trying to find out if I could do Referral Rewards Program under my state sop. :shock:
Referral Rewards Program10/20/07 5:50 AMwhacko
Negated
Everything on www.nachi.org belongs to InterNACHI members to use and enjoy. InterNACHI members are also most welcome to use anything and everything I’ve every done or written outside of InterNACHI.
Nick, thank you