My guess is you are wrong again, Want another try? it’s 3 for 5 bucks at the circus this week. But for little cute kids with red hair and rosey cheeks you get 1 extra guess for Free.
Or forgoe the guesses and gibe some answers. You’re shot to tell the world.
Jim
In simple words, the vendor made the home inspectors recruited who peddle his wares put a clause in their inspection agreements so consumers like Mr Biggs have no idea where his personal information may end up.
Because the inspectors are forbidden to talk about it on a forum, such as this. Nor do the inspectors probably even know who may end of with the client(s) personal information, only the vendor does.
I presume the inspectors peddling these wares simply ask their clients who have much more important things on their minds who are glancing through the inspection agreement to “initial here” if you don’t mind if I provide your private contact information to (TPSP) guised alarm brokers as someone providing outstanding superior products, whether you want them or not.
In which anyone can get their own information regarding recalls of any kind, even the car they drove to the inspection in, let alone the appliances which many don’t even convey with the sale of the property.
It most certainly is a great scam, it probably took many man hours to concoct a way to get the home inspector clients personal contact information emailed to vendors. Sad really.
Duffy what happened to you
I cannot believe you jumped into the soupwagon with the losers like that bushart abd farcetta guys:mrgreen:
Dale is a smart cookie with mad skills. A very respected Inspector (and rightfully so) in the Inspection Biz.
Jim
Hey, Dan…
Thanks for standing up.
English is my first language with others (plural) as secondary. There was no mistaking that you included everybody on that list at www.trustyourinspector.org . I am understanding what others have been saying about your attempts at changing what you say. That is sad as it does not reflect well upon you or your company.
Yes I have had the opportunity to read through various parts of this vendor’s contracts. Quite frankly I do not understand how any Home Inspector could agree to any such language. The contract is very well worded to place the Home Inspector directly in the middle of any problems that might arise and makes the Home Inspector completely responsible as well as unable to defend themselves.
It is interesting that those that seem to support this vendor and the products sold apparently have not done their homework either. You Home Inspectors are basically consultants who sell your opinions to the consumer. That has, for the most part, exempted you from the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA). However once you start selling products and services that are not your opinions based on your primary function you no longer enjoy that protection against the DTPA. It only takes one consumer complaining and they have a simple loop hole to break your barrier against the DTPA.
It would certainly be in the benefit of any Home Inspector selling products and services beyond their own consulting services to discuss with their own Attorney how the consumer can reach you more easily in a legal dispute. Of course you can always listen to this vendor and his supposed legal team that is there to protect the vendor and not you. Naturally I would expect any Home Inspector selling these products and services not to have the business acumen to see this. This is most likely also why no Home Inspectors who sell these products, or are attempting to debase or ridicule others who do not agree with or use the products, are willing to attempt to answer my questions.
Mr. Biggs,
This advice is consistent with what I have recommended for months now. The vendor in question seems to have an aversion to recommending any inspector seek competent counsel on these matters on his/her own. Instead, the advice is to believe him, as he is an industry expert and has attorneys that work for him.
There is a particularly significant clause in one of this vendor’s contracts which required the inspector to indemnify the vendor in the event of an action. It would be interesting to see if this clause is, in fact, universally enforceable. This brings another question to light as it pertains to the concept of consideration, which is another thing I have asked repeatedly. Absent of consideration, is a contract enforceable. Generally speaking, in contract law, there must be some consideration, or something of value.
The vendor has claimed that some things have a $0 value. I don not believe this works. When suggested to consult an attorney, anyone who does such is characterized as an idiot.
Is there ever a day in your life when you don’t lie?
Nathan,
I have never recommended taking MY word for anything. In fact, I consistently recommend that inspectors check with their own attorneys. YOU are the individual who provides all the excuses why an inspector should not do this.
Once again, you perpetuate the myth that you say something different.
So, Nate… please agree with me that the very BEST thing an inspector should do with regard to contractual questions is to seek competent legal counsel from those who represents THEM, and no one else; THEIR attorney.
My position is repeated every time the question comes up.
As to the concept of consideration, it either exists or it does not exist. There are many forms of consideration. “Consideration” requires value, which is indeterminate. This is why cars and houses are sometimes sold for $1. $1 represents consideration, paid to the parties involved in the contract, and cannot involve a 3rd party.
Bump.
That is excessively old.
I’ll make a deal with you.
You keep track of his lies for while.
call him out on his lie within 60 minutes of each occurrence and you won’t hear from me.
Geesus !
It has gotten you nowhere ,but you still keep doing it.
My thoughts exactly. Looks like a familiar writing style and we do have one member that has bragged about their various anonymous accounts on other forums…
Oh my God Joe!!! First the personal vendetta against Nathan now you’re responding to Bushart’s doppelganger as if he is a real consumer. PHULEEESE!
George,
I have asked Jim repeatedly if he was John Biggs. He assures me he is not.
Biggs has not responded to me. I must assume there is a reason.
There is no vendetta against Nathan. Never has been.
Could be an alter ego !
Are you saying this doesn’t stem from Nathan ?