An Odd Request

Last weekend brought in an odd request. A potential client, who was purchasing a "new build" home wanted us to do what's known as a "third party" or independent inspection. That's not new. We get those requests all the time. What was new about this one was that the builder wanted us to sign a contract with them before we could inspect the house.

That's a new one. The buyer sent me a copy of the contract the builder wanted us to sign. It was several pages long and more one-sided than an insurance contract. It's been a while since I took that contract law course, but I still remember a few things. Plus I've always scored pretty high in reading comprehension. Lots of problems signing that thing.

1. The builder wanted us to have a certificate of insurance issued naming them. I could understand this request if we were doing subcontract work for them but this contract was only good for a specific buyer and property. I thought that showing them proof of insurance should be sufficient without specifically naming them.
2. They had a requirement that the site superintendent must approve and be present at the inspection. I took that to mean that the site superintendent was intended to supervise the inspection. Mark is a licensed professional inspector. He also has academic credentials that include an advanced degree. In Texas, builders are not subject to licensing requirements, nor are academic credentials required. So in essence, they wanted us to agree to be supervised by someone who is not qualified to supervise. Additionally, there was no provision for remuneration if the site superintendent was late or failed to keep the appointment.
3. The contract stated that the inspection must be conducted during "normal business hours" without defining what those are. It also stated that the inspection must be performed prior to the "New Home Orientation", without defining what that is or when it takes place. For all we know, we might have a 30 minute window to perform the inspection. It takes Mark a minimum of 2 1/2 to 3 hours. Period.
4. The terms of the contract prohibit the inspector from being on the roof. This doesn't really bother us because we have equipment that allows us to do a very thorough inspection from a ladder and the ground. But not all inspectors have this equipment. The disservice is to the buyer.
5. The contract prohibited the inspector from communicating with any workers other than the site superintendent. Seriously, if the property is ready for inspection, there should not be any other workers present to communicate with. We certainly do not want to set up our equipment when there are tradesmen wandering about because it is clear that the builder is not willing to accept any responsibility for damage to our equipment that might be caused by a workman.
6. Under the terms of this contract, we assumed responsibility for damage to our own equipment as well as any damage to the property. For the sake of argument, let's assume that the site superintendent does not stay for the entire inspection. And since our inspections typically take a minimum of three hours, that seems like a reasonable possibility. But we could be held responsible for damage caused by someone who came in after we left.
7. Under the terms of this contract, we must deliver a copy of the inspection to the builder. It is our practice to deliver the report to the person who paid for it. What they do with it is up to them. We feel it is the buyer's responsibility to deliver the report, not ours.

Most contracts are mutually beneficial to the parties. This contract had no benefit to us at all.

The bottom line - we declined. I don't really understand what this particular builder is up to. But we won't be signing a one-sided contract with them.

I'm sure there are some inspectors who will agree to be supervised and will willingly sign their contract. I hope it goes well for them. But when I'm told the contract is "non-negotiable" I take them at their word. I don't negotiate. I also don't sign.