Builder messed up, and blames me!

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by jbushart

When, after the inspection the client informed the inspector he would not be paying and the inspector taking exception to this, how in the world do you arrive at your convenient conclusion that no payment was "agreed to"?

See my edit for added clarity.

[Billy Boerner]

Originally Posted by jbraun

Billy,
But all contracts I have see state that the client receives a written report. How are you getting around that?

Take the INACHI contract for example. Yes it states we will provide a report. It also states payment is due upon completion of the on-site inspection. If the client refuses to pay then the contract on their end has been compromised and "I" would not release a report. The point I'm trying to make however is I wouldn't take the info I learned on this client and sell it or give it to any third party. Due to the wording of NACHI's current agreement we could still be held liable for such information IMO. The NACHI agreement and all others needs to specifically read "NO payment, then no report is due by the inspector and information collected is sole property of the inspector and may be shared by the inspector to any third party". Since none of our contracts state this seems to me we could all be caught in a catch 22 situation. Maybe Joe Ferry needs to readdress the current agreement.

[mnahrgang]

Originally Posted by jbraun

If payment is not received, would that break the contract?

Yes it would...

A contract is a two way agreement. If one person doesn't hold up their end of the bargain (pay) then the other is released from his obligations per the contract.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by mnahrgang

Yes it would...

A contract is a two way agreement. If one person doesn't hold up their end of the bargain (pay) then the other is released from his obligations per the contract.

That is how I see it as well.

Jim?

[Billy Boerner]

Originally Posted by mnahrgang

Yes it would...

A contract is a two way agreement. If one person doesn't hold up their end of the bargain (pay) then the other is released from his obligations per the contract.

Your probably right. I agree. My sole opinion is keep your the clients info confidential. Don't release it regardless. Anytime you go to court the judge has the ultimate say so. He may hold you responsible to some extent for releasing information to a third party. That's all I'm trying to say.

Again it's the grey areas that can lead to trouble. In my opinion a contract needs to be very clear.

[James H. Bushart]

The point that all of you are missing is this.

The duty to be observe the code of ethics does not begin with a contract or end with a fee being paid.

A NACHI member does not gain a "right" to violate the code of ethics or act unprofessionally toward a client for any reason. He risks his membership in the association should the client complain. Your duty to act professionally and ethically with the public never ends no matter if you are paid or not.

[Billy Boerner]

Originally Posted by jbushart

The point that all of you are missing is this.

The duty to be observe the code of ethics does not begin with a contract or end with a fee being paid.

A home inspector does never gain a "right" to violate the code of ethics or act unprofessionally toward a client for any reason. He risks his membership in the association should the client complain. Your duty to act professionally and ethically with the public never ends no matter if you are paid or not.

When it comes to Will according to IL law he was not acting as a home inspector and therefore has no obligation to live up to the CEO as a consultant.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by bboerner

When it comes to Will according to IL law he was not acting as a home inspector and therefore has no obligation to live up to the CEO as a consultant.

And how do you conclude that, Billy?

[James E. Braun, CMI]

Does a client remain a client even if the inspector never gets paid?

[Marcel R. Cyr]

Very strange predicament for Wil.
In reading his original post, sounds like no contract or agreement was ever signed.
A contract is a legally enforceable agreement between two or more parties who promise to do, or not to do, a particular thing.

To be valid and legally enforceable, an implied or express contract must meet five specific requirements, which may be characterized as follows:
a. voluntary agreement, b. consideration, c. legal competence of all parties, d. lawful subject matter, and e. proper form.

Voluntary agreement consists of both an offer by one party to enter into a contract with a second party and acceptance by the second party of all the terms and conditions of the offer. If any part of the offer is not accepted, there is no contract. And, if it can be proved that coercion, undue pressure, or fraud was used to obtain a contract, it may be voided by the injured party.

A contract is a binding agreement only when each party provides something of value to the other party.
The value express here is the expert opinions of Wil explaining what is wrong with the structure.
The value or benefit that one party furnishes to the other party is called consideration.
This consideration may be money, property, a service, or the promise not to exercise a legal right.
The service was provided as I can see and refusal of payment executed by the other party.
The contract was broken.
Wil should be entitled to sue for payments not rendered under this verbal contract.

That is the way I see it. Just my opinion.

[Billy Boerner]

Originally Posted by jbushart

And how do you conclude that, Billy?

Because the property was not currently under contract for sale from what I understand.

[Bob Elliott]

Originally Posted by bboerner

Because the property was not currently under contract for sale from what I understand.

50% of the units were for sale.

[James H. Bushart]

Originally Posted by belliott

50% of the units were for sale.

...and the client who owned them was a "realtor/flipper".

I think the violation of Article 9 of the COE is the first domino to fall.

[Billy Boerner]

Originally Posted by belliott

50% of the units were for sale.

Well then if this is the case then he acted as a home inspector according to law and indeed the COE would come into affect. However since he didn't release the report info to anyone then Will has no problem with the CEO in that regard. He does have a problem with unlicensed guys doing pre listing inspections amoung other types of inspections on non contracted homes since the law clearly states a home inspection is only conducted when a home is under contract.

[Billy Boerner]

Originally Posted by jbushart

...and the client who owned them was a "realtor/flipper".

I think the violation of Article 9 of the COE is the first domino to fall.

CEO article 9: The InterNACHI member shall use a written contract that specifies the services to be performed, limitations of services and fees.

Yes according to law if the property was under contract to sell then Will did indeed do a home inspection instead of a consultation from how I read it. Of course this is just my opinion and if my opinion stands true then a contract according to the NACHI CEO will be in place.