Move In Certified Question

[Billy Boerner]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Show us how you caused the seller financial loss in your scenario. Had you never been born and the buyer did the exact same inspection with the exact same inspector and found the exact same bad roof, the buyer would have walked. The seller would still have a bad roof and no buyer. How has the seller been additionally damaged by anyone, let alone you?

Now your fixated on the roof. To me it's clear. The seller hired me to pre inspect their home. Sellers normally do this so they can have ample time to repair their home. Ok say I missed a shot roof. Say the only thing that scared the buyer away was the shot roof. The buyer walks (yes I agree the seller still has the same shot roof the buyers inspector found that I missed) however now the house goes back on the market. Since I didn't do my job properly now I'm causing the seller additional financial loss because the house could of been contracted the day of the buyers inspection if it wasn't for me missing the roof in the first place. It could of been fixed in time before the buyers inspector got on scene. Nick both you and I have experience buying and selling houses. We both know the longer you sit on a house the less you make in profit. So they may not get a new roof out of me however they do have grounds to collect monies incurred after the fact as a result of me missing the roof in the first place. You can be sued for anything and I could hear a judge say almost immediately. Boy aren't you certified to inspect Roofs? Was you sleeping at the wheel on this given day?

[Nick Gromicko]

Nope. You can't change your scenario to show two different outcomes. That would be different scenarios. In your scenario, the buyer walked not just because of a bad roof, but because presumably the seller refused to buy a new one for the buyer. No buyer turns down a brand new roof paid for by the seller (and depending how the contract is written, may not even have the legal option of walking if the seller is willing to replace the roof). So, since in your scenario the seller was unwilling to buy a new roof for the buyer when the buyer's inspector discovered the bad roof, the seller would also be unwilling to buy a new roof had you discovered it.

The seller's willingness to buy a new roof for the buyer is independent of your inspection report and so irrelevant.

If the seller would have been willing to buy a new roof had you found the problem, the seller would have certainly been willing to buy a new roof when a future inspector found the problem. Your failure to find the problem has not cost the seller anything additional.

[Billy Boerner]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Nope. You can't change your scenario to show two different outcomes. That would be different scenarios. In your scenario, the buyer walked not just because of a bad roof, but because presumably the seller refused to buy a new one for the buyer. No buyer turns down a brand new roof paid for by the seller (and depending how the contract is written, may not even have the legal option of walking if the seller is willing to replace the roof). So, since in your scenario the seller was unwilling to buy a new roof for the buyer when the buyer's inspector discovered the bad roof, the seller would also be unwilling to buy a new roof had you discovered it.

The seller's willingness to buy a new roof for the buyer is independent of your inspection report and so irrelevant.

If the seller would have been willing to buy a new roof had you found the problem, the seller would have certainly been willing to buy a new roof when a future inspector found the problem. Your failure to find the problem has not cost the seller anything additional.

Nick your the man I agree. However MIC doesn't come without some sort of liability. Anyway you look at it if you fail to do your job and another inspector has to do it for you your reputation is going to turn into liability for you and you as the inspector most likely over time will suffer financial loss. No different than getting sued your loosing money either way. You have to agree with that one. Just look at your own message board. All kinds of inspectors are like look at me and what I found today. The MIC inspector must of been a 20 yr old kid.

[Nick Gromicko]

Nick your the man I agree. However MIC doesn't come without some sort of liability. Anyway you look at it if you fail to do your job and another inspector has to do it for you your reputation is going to turn into liability for you. You have to agree with that one.

I don't. I see how having egg on your face by being shown to be wrong harms your reputation, but you have not yet revealed how it equates to a financial liability (actual damages). The second inspector eliminated all damages for everyone by finding the problem before the buyer bought the home.

If you had been working for the buyer (instead of the seller) and made the exact same roofing mistake, and you got egg on your face by being shown to be wrong AFTER the buyer (relying on your report) buys the home with the bad roof.... you don't just have a reputation issue... your client has suffered real damages and can blame you.

A harmed reputation is better than a harmed reputation and actual damages.

Show me where I'm wrong and I'll give you the $1,000.00. You can't, because I'm right.

[Billy Boerner]

Originally Posted by gromicko

I don't. I see how having egg on your face by being shown to be wrong harms your reputation, but you have not yet revealed how it equates to a financial liability. The second inspector eliminated all damages for everyone.

If you had been working for a buyer and you get egg on your face by being shown wrong AFTER the buyer, relying on your report, buys the home with the bad roof.... you don't just have a reputation issue... you have caused damages.

Show me where I'm wrong and I'll give you the $1,000.00. You can't, because I'm right.

I already agreed with you Your right. I understand however explain to me now why so many other's are against the concept.

[Mark Nahrgang]

Originally Posted by bboerner

I already agreed with you Your right. I understand however explain to me now why so many other's are against the concept.

I would say that they simply don't understand it...

Kind of like why do so many people like our current Pres? They don't understand him.

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Show me where I'm wrong and I'll give you the $1,000.00. You can't, because I'm right.

OK, tell me why the seller could not claim damages for the following reasons?

1. Seller hired an inspector to find out what may need attention before putting the house on the market.

2. Seller places the home on the market and finds a willing buyer in a tough market at an agreed upon price and after his informed disclosure to the buyer.

3. Buyer's inspector finds a major roof issue that the seller's inspector missed and that the seller was unaware of.

4. Buyer balks and walks and starts looking for another house.

5. Seller now has to have roof repaired and or lower his sale price and because that takes time he loses money and the time value of of his money and may even have to cancel the purchase of any house deal he was in the middle of.

6. Seller calls up his inspector and says " hey Mr. Inspector, you cost me money because you missed the roof problems and my pending sale fell through. The reason I hired you was to avoid this type of thing happening. you'll be hearing from my lawyer on Monday."

Your turn.

[Nick Gromicko]

Michael Larson, asked and answered in post #46.

If the seller would have been willing to replace the roof had the first inspector found the problem he certainly would be willing to replace the roof when the second inspector found the problem (to save his deal). The seller isn't in any worse position due to the first inspector being wrong. And the seller's roof is in no worse shape.

No buyer is going to turn down a new roof (and depending on how the contract was written, likely can't walk if the seller is willing to buy a new roof).

[Mark Nahrgang]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Michael Larson, asked and answered in post #46.

Different scenario Nick. In Mikes example they buyers walked. In post 46 the buyers walked because the sellers didn't want to fix...

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by gromicko

Michael Larson, asked and answered in post #46.

If the seller would have been willing to replace the roof had the first inspector found the problem he certainly would be willing to replace the roof when the second inspector found the problem. No buyer is going to turn down a new roof (and depending on how the contract was written, likely can't walk if the seller is willing to buy a new roof).

Missed that post but it's a dodge anyway.

If the seller had put on a new roof he possibly could have raised his price and or sold it even sooner because of it. We are back to the time value of his money argument.

[Nick Gromicko]

Michael Larson writes:

If the seller had put on a new roof he possibly could have raised his price and or sold it even sooner because of it.

Nope. Fresh paint and general clean up (neither of which can be considered a repair or replacement) are the only expenses that can recoup a return. Kitchen and bath remodels are next but can only recoup about 85% of cost. A new roof won't recoup even 1/2 of its cost. Plenty of stats all over the internet to back this up. Remember, in such a claim the seller would be relegated to a wild hypothetical like yours (instead of being able to prove quantifiable damages in court)... and the fact is (and any appraiser will confirm) that a new roof is never worth more than a new roof.

[Paul Pendley]

Certified is not my choice of words for sure....

[Paul Pendley]

I think "pre-inspected" would be the better term.

[Paul Pendley]

Its not a toyota

[Mark Nahrgang]

Originally Posted by ppendley

Its not a toyota

Paul, that's an excellent analogy! Think about this for a minute. In the case of the used Toyota that is "certified". The mechanic does an inspection. Based on that inspection, the owner (dealer) fixes the car, and then the OWNER certifies it. Not the mechanic, and not even the used car salesman. It's the OWNER doing the certification. The mechanic is simply an employee of the owner doing an inspection. The smart buyer will still take the "certified" car to their own mechanic and if he finds something amiss, the buyer will either walk away from the deal, negotiate a better deal, or ask the dealer to fix the problem.

Same thing with a house. The inspector does the inspection. The owner fixes the house. Then OWNER then certifies it. The smart buyer will still have the "certified" home inspected, and if the inspector finds something amiss, the buyer will either walk away from the deal, negotiate a better deal, or ask the seller to fix the problem.


This whole discussion however revolves around the relationship between the "mechanic and the dealer". It's an employer/employee relationship. If the mechanic missed something, the dealer might fire them. But it wouldn't be reasonable for the dealer to require the mechanic to pay for the repairs that he missed. Likewise in the case of the home inspector and the seller. If the inspector missed something, the seller probably wouldn't use them again, or recommend them (fire them). But it wouldn't be reasonable to require the inspector to repair the items that were missed.