InspectionNews - Home Inspection - View Single Post

Bruce King · #7 (**permalink**) 10-09-2007, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry Peck

highlighting with bold is mine)

Is it just me, or does the part in bold in (1) contradict the part in bold in the last paragraph?

Seems to me an easy way around that "shall not contain" "recommendations" is to do what I have always said before - do not "recommend" installing GFCI protection, instead, simply state "GFCI protection is missing at ... ".

Now you can put it in the summary, and, let the others worry about whether or not is should be, may be, is not allowed to be, or can be, 'in the summary. You, the HI, should not really care "when" GFCI protection was required where and a what point in time, just simply state that there is no GFCI protection installed (based on current nationally recognized standards), thus "GFCI protection is missing" at those locations.

I agree about the contradiction, this is one reason for the overhaul in progress.

Jerry, I do not remember seeing your advice about not making the actual GFCI installation recomendation before, what is your reasoning on that?

It seems like a blank check for a clients atty. that could argue that the HI only mentioned something and was negligent in making it known to the homebuyer that it needed to be actually installed before occupying the house therefore allowing an injury or death to occur.