The last two posts are exctly what I wrote down when reviewing the presentation.

Text is fine. However, there really needs to be voice-over to accentuate the need and selling point of why they seller should sping for the fee in lieu of the buyer. After-all, it's incumbent on the buyer to identify what s/he wants repaired.

The reason we all get the business for a home to be inspected by the buyer is so that they can have piece of mind that they are not going to be surprised by major component failure(s). Think about it, if the seller(s) have lived there for *X* amount of years and they don't disclose items today because they don't want to have to pay for anything that the buyer doesen't identify as needing repair, why would you think that the radical change would take effect because of someone inspecting before the home went on the market?

There-in lies the issue with the "Move-In Certified" concept. For the most part, sellers want to do as little as possible, not as much as possible...

The 'FREE FROM DEFECTS' is a phrase that will always lead to call-backs and/or possibly worse. Advertising as such ("defect-free"), is border-line deceptive. The problem with stating such is this: You may actually sign a contract with the seller when conducting the inspection that will relieve you of the burder of the "Defect Free" clause. However, the problem lies in that this report is not your typical document and is considered a "living" document in that, with it comes the presumption that it *WILL* be passed on and used from seller to buyer. Since your contract is with the seller and not the buyer, the buyer is actually the one who will push the handle down on the toaster when needing to head up your buns.

Now, get away from the "Defect-Free" moniker of this type inspection and change it to "Major Systems Previously Inspected" would be more accurate.

JMO

rr

__________________
"If con is the opposite of pro, is Congress the opposite of progress?"
Richard Rushing, HCRI
Duncanville, Tx.