UPset Agent

We are finding that many times the complaints of the listing agent are based on what the purchaser has said his report stated, which in many instances has little to do with what it actually stated. The purchaser, apparently wanting to either drive the price of the house down or just vacate his offer, is telling the listing agent and the owner that the home inspection has condemned the home in question when in fact the inspection has revealed only minor problems.

To combat this unfortunate turn of events, the ALLIANCE of CANADIAN HOME INSPECTORS is urging both listing and selling agents to include a clause in the offer to purchase that allows the home owner access to the report should the offer to purchase fail. Whether this includes remuneration to the report owner ( purchaser) or not is something that the agents can fight over. At any rate, the ACHI believes that this will help to control a situation that has damaged the reputations of many inspectors and the industry in general.

Now that is an interesting thought, I wonder should this be run by a lawyer to get a legal opinion?.

Please others with there thoughts and ideas please post so all can peruse them too.

Question - who “owns” the inspection report?

The client that signed the agreement and paid for it! :roll:

Thanks Claude .
That’s why I think a legal opinion is needed ,It could be a simple as how the contract is written or as complicated as to not allowed .

In my experience down here, the vendor’s agent/homeowner always get a report copy when anything changes from the original deal negotiated. Is this not the way it’s done in Ontario? Why would the home owner accept any change to the deal they signed without having a written report substantiating the building’s flaws (of substantial value) and why the purchaser wants to re-negotiate the price or require repairs/upgrades?

I can see why the problems, and lots of them, arise.

("In my experience down here, the vendor’s agent/homeowner always get a report copy when anything changes from the original deal negotiated " )

How do they all get a copy .

The bottom of your contract says

" NOTE the inspection report is for the exclusive use of the client named above.No use of the information by any other party is intended"

It is as Brian stated here in the states. The buyer (client) uses his/her “exclusive use” by supplying a copy of the reported section (not necessarily the entire report) during any negotiating process. It is expected, and usually required, to supply the reason and “proof” for the negotiations.

Sounds good to me but Brian is a stickler for details and this is Canada.
Brian has non stop ridiculed NACHI, NICK and many NACHI members .
Many no longer Post here as much as they have before with his continuing trying to hurt NACHI and its members.
He belongs to no association and does little for our industry .
I wonder why he would use a Contract that has this on the bottom.

On my contract I have a spot for the client to initial approval of giving their agent a copy of the report.

Court of Appeal Ontario
Marshall v. Bernard Place Corp., 2002 CanLII 24835 (ON CA)

                                                             Print:                     [

PDF Format]( Date: 2002-02-13 Docket: C35104 Parallel citations: 58 OR (3d) 97 • 26 BLR (3d) 9 • 156 OAC 377

How do you know what’s at the bottom of my contract?

I can read … Thanks … You need to look close to see what is on web site .

But you don’t know how I conduct business!! That contract at the front of the CD book has** NEVER been used by myself**!!

Keep it up, Roy…Let’s have some fun tonight!!!

I do not need to see how you conduct your business .
I see how badly you are on this Forum and I do not feel I need to know any more about you
I see how badly you behave your self in our home .
You are not a very good example of this industry the way I see it .
You are a self centered person who seems to try and show how great you are .

G’Night, Roy!!!

Courts have upheld exculpatory clauses, provided they are brought to the attention of the party signing the contract. While other jurisdictions have ruled them invalid.

If the client does not like the terms of the contract they are free to contract with another party.

IMO, in the majority of cases, the problem with that is: The client never sees the weasel clause until on-site just before the inspection is to begin. Arrangements have been made for the vendor to be absent, buyer(s) have taken time off work/have someone take care of kids. In some cases, other professionals have been contacted to be on site (water testing, sewer video inspection, kitchen/bath reno specialist, etc).

When the contract is to be signed on-site without the client having a prior chance to view it*, there is a lot of pressure to sign it and move on. With the above arrrangements in place, it would take a unique inidvidual to be onsite and say “we’re cancelling this whole inspection; I don’t like the terms of the inspector’s contract!”

If we’re going to have contracts (especially with weasel clauses) for home inspections, the client should have at least 2-3 business days to view the contract they will sign and possibly have their lawyer look at it.

  • and/or run it by their lawyer. This happens in the vast maority of real estate purchase contracts also- lawyer only sees contract AFTER it is signed and binding!! Then the lawyer can’t do much for you!!

Who said anything about the client not having a chance to review the contract?

That is why its important to post contracts on inspectors websites!

The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld limitations of liability clauses.

Exactly My client gets the Contract and fills in all the information required including the address of the inspection their info including all phone numbers and their address . I fill in my info and inspection fees after they have finished reading and writing.
If they choose to not read it all, not my fault.
Tell me when if ever have you read the contract you sign with your credit card transaction ,many of these are long very small writing and confusing.and a washed out colour
I know I never read them . .

Do you have a reference where I can go and read this ruling.
The reason I ask is because the Alberta Government has written the following into the new regulations.

Prohibited wording
**22 **A home inspection business shall not include a clause in a home inspection contract or home inspection report that
(a) limits the liability, or the amount of liability, of the home inspection business or the home inspector for breach of contract or negligence, or
(b) limits the time for making any claim against the home inspection business or home inspector.

I have been told that there is a two year limit in others article’s in the fair trade act of which the above is going to be a part of.
I have also been told that the government can not force you to write these kinds of clauses into your contracts.
We Will probably have to seek a legal opinion on this and may have to go to court and get a ruling on it.
If anyone can provide a web address where court rulings in this situation, I would appreciate it.