H.I. Licensing Is Beginning to Heat Up In B.C.

[luna]

According to an April article in The Mortgage News Daily some Winnipeg, CA residents want to follow Great Britain’s lead, and have government government-mandated property condition reports on all new homes put up for sale.

Could this be the Holy Grail for home inspectors? Read more...

[kurt]

Sorry, I think the guy's got a little of this right, but a fair amount wrong.

What about all the states that don't recognize limitation of liability clauses? Or, judges that decide not to recognize them? This is old stuff, hashed out many times w/alternating outcomes all over the map.

Besides, I never trust anyone that puts "Esquire" after their name......

[Scottpat]

More and more states are not recognizing the "Limit of Liability". I think we have around 17 states that do not allow it now. As it is case law in those states it would fairly simple to for other states courts to follow along. Mississippi joined the ranks back in November 2005 when the state Supreme ruled that the limit of liability was not enforceable.

[paul burrell]

RE: signature on contract:

I have a paragraph that states in bold type at the end of the contract just above the signature area. It was given to me by a good ASHI friend several years past:

"It is agreed that in the absence of client's signature on this agreement, usage of the inspection report by the client, or the client's agent's or representative will be the same as agreeing to the terms herein. It is further understood and agreed that this agreement applies to any and all subsequent evaluations and reports relating to this inspection for this property".

Acceptance and understanding of this agreement are hereby acknowledged:

Any comments please.

Paul B.

[Les]

Paul,

I don't operate in Georgia, so take this with a grain of salt.

It would appear to me that your verbage is too convoluted and not easy to understand. Those Those are issues that attys and judges love to see. You present a negative argument, rather than a positive one. A positive might read "This inspection and report are for the exclusive use by the named client and no other individual or entity may rely upon it." I think the report is your work product in Ga, however is not in some states. This would limit your liability to the named client, which I believe would be statuory.

Please understand that it is my experience that those inspectors that blatantly try to limit their liability are the inspectors that get sued.

Some on this board know that I am never fearful to participate in holding inspectors responsible for their actions, including myself and company.

Spend a little time in your state learning about precedent and ask the advice of a knowledgeable atty that has some experience. It is a tort issue.

I have read that paper in the past and still think it is "way off base".

[Jim Morrison]

Paul,

I think a judge would likely tell you that if you've got no signature, you've got no contract.

Jimmy

[paul burrell]

Originally posted by Jim Morrison

Paul,

I think a judge would likely tell you that if you've got no signature, you've got no contract.

Jimmy

Jim you may be correct. Back several decades past a contract was a contract was a contract. Now it means little. The lawyers and judges tell us what it means in court. It may be better not to have one at all as far as litigation goes cause the judge is going to tell you what it means anyway. The decisions that some of these bleeding heart liberal judges have been handing down makes one wonder if our system of justice means anything anymore.

Just my observation of why nobody takes responsibility for their own actions anymore. They do not have to under our present system. A judge and a sharp lawyer will shift their responsibility to someone else.

Sorry for the venting but I feel better now.

Paul B.

[kurt]

Yup. Contracts now are a matter of accounting; if the plaintiff figures they can net a positive amount in a suit, they go for it. Contracts mean little to nothing.

I've got a customer who heads the real estate dept. for one of the largest law firms in the country. He always signs the contract without reading it. Last time I worked for him I asked him "(name withheld), how come you never read it before signing?".

His response; "It's only a contract; it's meaningless".

Don't get me wrong; the guy is a nice guy & great customer. But, he does understand that contracts aren't worth the paper they're written on.

[Les]

Kurt,

Your atty friend is right.

A contract is a meeting of the minds - period.