His blog is always interesting, and today’s offering regarding caution in the purchase of a boat, comparing it in magnitude to the purchase of a home, resonated with me.

With our mountain house up for sale, I’ve had recent opportunity to read the boiler plate language of a typical California Home Inspection contract.

On point in this discussion, and not an exhaustive analysis, the language generally protects the inspector while leaving him/her free to express ‘opinion’. Because the prospective buyer is hiring the inspector, it’s acknowledged in the trade that the inspector’s job is to ‘find things that are or may be wrong’.

Realtors on both sides of the transaction try and temper that fact by informing the prospective buyer that just because the inspector’s opinion may be negative on certain items does not mean he is correct, that the item(s) are expensive to fix, or that the noted conditions are fatal to the sale.

Fact is, everyone wants a good and fair inspection.

We recently had an offer and the inspector is known as the best in the area. He inspected the house 9 years ago when we bought, and I have his written report from then. Without going into detail of variances between what was noted in 2000 and his opinions in 2009, the buyer was sufficiently nervous about the opinions expressed and backed out of the deal.

While an inspector is by contractual language expressing ‘opinion’, there is a fine line between inspection opinion and advocacy for a party under the guise of opinion.

Back to boat shopping. I’ve no idea the terms and conditions of a maritime vessel inspection contract, but a prospective buyer, even if knowledgeable, would be well-served to hire an inspector who is competent, unbiased and who has no interest in the outcome of the sale. A buyer, because of emotional and financial involvement, is biased.

A seller should attend the inspection whether represented by agent, counsel or anyone else. Your own notes, pictures, tape of the event, etc. will serve you well.

My realtor was at our home inspection, and I was not. No one did anything wrong per se, but I was the only one with personal knowledge to explain away, legitimately, criticisms of the property that I could prove were unfounded, and acknowledge legitimate criticisms.

We may have had a different outcome had I been there instead of believing, because of prior positive history, that the inspection was ‘routine’.

Lesson learned here, and best to you on the seas……..safely,

Terry V. Waggoner, J.D.
Mediator