Thread: ASTM E 2018

Does anyone have an electronic copy of ASTM E 2018 for commecial building inspection standards? And would you be willing to share?

Similar Threads:

• ASTM E2112, Standard Practice for Installation of Exterior Windows,Doors....
• ASTM E 84 vs UL2043
• polyethylene plastic tubing - astm d 2737
• ASTM Meeting Results
• ASTM SoP Meeting

I have my PDF copy with my name imprinted. To protect the copyright, please order your own copy online: ASTM E2018 -08 Standard Guide for Property Condition Assessments: Baseline Property...
Or you can view it in the reference section of most public library.

E-2018 is a mess and unusable. Try International Standards of Practice for Inspecting Commercial Properties - InterNACHI
It is free and comes with all necessary supporting legal forms and docs.

Originally Posted by Wm Denslow

Does anyone have an electronic copy of ASTM E 2018 for commecial building inspection standards? And would you be willing to share?

ASTM standards are copyrighted materials. When you buy an ASTM standard you agree NOT to share it. Violation of this copyright agreement carries some severe penalties.

Buy your own copy. It only costs $53.

ASTM E2018 -08 Standard Guide for Property Condition Assessments: Baseline Property...

ASTM License Agreement

ASTM License Agreement

IMPORTANT- READ THESE TERMS CAREFULLY BEFORE ENTERING THIS ASTM PRODUCT.

By purchasing an ASTM document in electronic format and clicking through this agreement, you are entering into a contract, and acknowledge that you have read this License Agreement, that you understand it and agree to be bound by its terms. If you do not agree to the terms of this License Agreement, promptly exit this page without entering the ASTM Product.

1. Ownership:
This Product is copyrighted, both as a compilation and as individual standards, articles and/or documents ("Documents") by ASTM ("ASTM"), 100 Barr Harbor Drive, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959 USA, except as may be explicitly noted in the text of the individual Documents. All rights reserved. You (Licensee) have no ownership or other rights in the ASTM Product or in the Documents. This is not a sale; all right, title and interest in the ASTM Product or Documents (in both electronic file and hard copy) belong to ASTM. You may not remove or obscure the copyright notice or other notices contained in the ASTM Product or Documents.

2. Definitions.
A. Types of Licensees:
(i) Individual User:
a single unique computer, with an individual IP address;
(ii) Single-Site and Multi-Site Use:
no single site (LAN) or multi-site (WAN) view/use of the electronic Document download is permitted
B. Authorized Users:
the individual who has purchased the individual standards on his/her pc only.

3. Limited License.
ASTM grants Licensee a limited, revocable, nonexclusive, non-transferable license to access, by means of password access, or by one or more authorized IP addresses, and according to the terms of this Agreement, to make the uses permitted and described below:
A. Specific Licenses:
(i) Individual User:
(a) the right to browse, search, retrieve, display and view the Product;
(b) the right to download, view or print a single copy of the individual Documents, or portions of such Documents, solely for Licensee's own use. That is, Licensee may access and download an electronic file of a Document (or portion of a Document) for temporary storage on one computer for purposes of viewing, and/or printing one copy of a Document for individual use. Neither the electronic file nor the single hard copy print may be reproduced in any way. In addition, the electronic file may not be distributed elsewhere over computer networks or otherwise. That is, the electronic file cannot be e mailed, downloaded to disk, copied to another hard drive or otherwise shared. The single hard copy print may only be distributed to others for their internal use within your organization; it may not be copied. The individual Document downloaded may not otherwise be sold or resold, rented, leased, lent or sub-licensed.
(ii) Single-Site and Multi-Site Licenses:
no single site (LAN) or multi-site (WAN) view/use of the electronic Document download is permitted
B. Prohibited Uses.
(i) This License describes all permitted uses. Any other use is prohibited, is a violation of this Agreement and can result in immediate termination of this License.
(ii) An Authorized User may not make this Product, or Documents, available to anyone other than another Authorized User, whether by Internet link, or by permitting access through his or her terminal or computer; or by other similar or dissimilar means or arrangements.
(iii) Specifically, no one is authorized to transmit, copy, or distribute any Document in any manner or for any purpose except as described in Section 3 of this License, without ASTM's prior express written permission. In particular, except as described in Section 3, no one may, without the prior express written permission of ASTM: (a) distribute or forward a copy (electronic or otherwise) of any article, file, or material obtained from any ASTM Product or Document; (b) reproduce or photocopy any standard, article, file, or material from any ASTM Product; (c) alter, modify, adapt, or translate any standard, article, file, or material obtained from any ASTM Product; (d) include any standard, article, file, or material obtained from any ASTM Product or Document in other works or otherwise create any derivative work based on any materials obtained from any ASTM Product or Document; (e) impose any charge for a copy (electronic or otherwise) of any standard, article, file, or material obtained from any ASTM Product or Document, except for normal printing/copying costs where such reproduction is authorized under Section 3; or (f) systematically download, archive, or centrally store substantial portions of standards, articles, files, or material obtained from any ASTM Product or Document. Inclusion of print or electronic copies in coursepacks or electronic reserves, or for distance learning use, is not authorized by this License and is prohibited without ASTM's prior written permission.
(iv) Licensee may not utilize the Product, or access to the Product, for commercial purposes, including but not limited to the sale of Documents, materials, fee-for-service use of the Product or bulk reproduction or distribution of Documents in any form; nor may Licensee impose special charges on Authorized Users for use of the Product beyond reasonable printing or administrative costs.
C. Copyright Notice. All copies of material from an ASTM Product must bear proper copyright notice in ASTM's name, as shown in the initial page of each standard, article, file or material. Obscuring, deletion or modification of the copyright notice is not permitted.

4. Detection of Prohibited Uses.
A. Licensee is responsible for taking reasonable measures to prevent prohibited uses, and promptly notify ASTM of any infringements of copyright or prohibited use of which Licensee becomes aware. Licensee will cooperate with ASTM in investigating any such prohibited uses and will take reasonable steps to ensure the cessation of such activity and to prevent any reoccurrence.
B. Licensee shall use all reasonable efforts to protect the Product from any use that is not permitted under this Agreement, and shall notify ASTM of any use of which it learns or is notified.

5. Continued Access to Product.
ASTM reserves the right to terminate this License, upon written notice, if Licensee materially breaches the terms of this Agreement. If Licensee fails to pay ASTM any fees when due, ASTM will provide the Licensee with a 30-day period within which to cure such breach. No cure period will be provided for material breaches relating to violations of Section 3 or any other breach likely to cause ASTM irreparable harm. If Licensee or Authorized Users materially breach this License or make prohibited uses of material in any ASTM Product, ASTM reserves the right to deny Licensee any access to the ASTM Product, in ASTM's sole discretion.

6. Delivery Formats and Service.
A. Some ASTM Products use standard Internet HTML format. The Licensee is responsible for obtaining at his/her expense suitable Internet connections, Web browsers, and licenses for any software necessary to download/view/print the ASTM Product.
B. The ASTM Products are also available in Adobe Acrobat (PDF) format to Licensee, who is solely responsible for installing and configuring the appropriate Adobe Acrobat Reader software.


7. Verification.
ASTM has the right to verify compliance with this Agreement, at its expense, and at any time during the course of normal business hours. To do so, ASTM will engage an independent consultant, subject to a confidentiality agreement, to review Licensee's use of ASTM Product and/or Documents. Licensee agrees to permit access to its information and computer systems for this purpose. Verification will take place upon no less than 15 days notice, during normal business hours and in a manner that does not interfere unreasonably with LicenseeÕs operations. If verification reveals unlicensed or prohibited use of the ASTM Product or Documents, Licensee agrees to reimburse ASTM for the costs incurred in verification and reimburse ASTM for any unlicensed/prohibited uses. By invoking this procedure, ASTM does not waive any of its rights to enforce this Agreement or to protect its intellectual property by any other means permitted by law.

8. Passwords:
Licensee must immediately notify ASTM of any known or suspected unauthorized use(s) of its password(s), or any known or suspected breach of security, including the loss, theft or unauthorized disclosure of such password or any unauthorized access to or use of the ASTM Product. Licensee is solely responsible for maintaining the confidentiality of its password(s) and for ensuring the authorized access and use of the ASTM Product. Personal accounts/passwords may not be shared.

9. Disclaimer of Warranty: Unless specified in this Agreement, all express or implied conditions, representations and warranties, including any implied warranty of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose or non-infringement are disclaimed, except to the extent that these disclaimers are held to be legally invalid.

10. Limitation of Liability: To the extent not prohibited by law, in no event will ASTM be liable for any loss, damage, lost data or for special, indirect, consequential or punitive damages, however caused regardless of the theory of liability, arising out of or related to the use of the ASTM Product or downloading of the ASTM Documents. In no event will ASTM's liability exceed the amount paid by Licensee under this License Agreement.

11. General.
A. Termination:
This Agreement is effective until terminated. Licensee may terminate this Agreement at any time by destroying all copies (hard, digital or in any media) of the ASTM Documents and terminating all access to the ASTM Product.
B. Governing Law, Venue, and Jurisdiction:
This Agreement shall be interpreted and construed in accordance with the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Licensee agrees to submit to jurisdiction and venue in the state and federal courts of Pennsylvania for any dispute which may arise under this Agreement. Licensee also agrees to waive any claim of immunity it may possess.
C. Integration:
This Agreement is the entire agreement between Licensee and ASTM relating to its subject matter. It supersedes all prior or contemporaneous oral or written communications, proposals, representations and warranties and prevails over any conflicting or additional terms of any quote, order, acknowledgment, or other communication between the parties relating to its subject matter during the term of this Agreement. No modification of this Agreement will be binding, unless in writing and signed by an authorized representative of each party.
D. Assignment:
Licensee may not assign or transfer its rights under this Agreement without the prior written permission of ASTM.
E. Taxes.
Licensee must pay any applicable taxes, other than taxes on ASTM's net income, arising out of Licensee's use of the ASTM Product and/or rights granted under this Agreement.

And that makes 2018 even more unusable.

International Standards of Practice for Inspecting Commercial Properties - InterNACHI

Originally Posted by Lisa Endza

And that makes 2018 even more unusable.

International Standards of Practice for Inspecting Commercial Properties - InterNACHI

Well, I might look at the iNacho standard and it might even be helpful but if I had to go to court, I would want the inspection and report to conform to the ASTM 2018 standard that has legal credibility.

International Standards of Practice for Inspecting Commercial Properties - InterNACHI is far more defensible. Read it once.

The ComInspect Network switched to it and it is now being used in 55 different countries.

In the U.S., 13 licensed states award home inspectors CE for completing the commercial course based on the International Standard of Practice for Inspecting Commercial Properties.

Originally Posted by Lisa Endza

International Standards of Practice for Inspecting Commercial Properties - InterNACHI is far more defensible. Read it once.

The ComInspect Network switched to it and it is now being used in 55 different countries.

In the U.S., 13 licensed states award home inspectors CE for completing the commercial course based on the International Standard of Practice for Inspecting Commercial Properties.

That may well and true but has precedence been establish in the U.S. legal system? Do you really think a U.S. court would accept iNACHI standards over ASTM?

Upheld all the time. InterNACHI is the world's largest inspection trade association, operating in 55 countries and nine different languages. Residential and Commercial inspections are our only focus (we aren't into jet fuels ).

2018 isn't an SOP at all. It is a Scope of Work permission form that requires little, prohibits little, and puts the inspector in the precarious position of providing repair estimates.

Have you read International Standards of Practice for Inspecting Commercial Properties - InterNACHI ?

Originally Posted by Lisa Endza

Upheld all the time. InterNACHI is the world's largest inspection trade association, operating in 55 countries and nine different languages. Residential and Commercial inspections are our only focus (we aren't into jet fuels ).

[/url] ?

Up held all the time? Considering that ole nicko drempt up his commercial standards less than a year ago, they've already been used in court, and upheld already? I'm leaning to inspecting jet fuels.
I'm not sure if I would want to consider inspecting commercial properties.
I'm leaning to inspecting jet fuels, at least those lawsuits may take a few years.

Yes, the International SOP for Inspecting Commercial Properties is regularly pointed to (in court) as the standard by which inspectors should inspect commercial properties to. Many home inspectors trying to enter the commercial inspection business, erroneously try to apply their residential SOP to a commercial property inspection and get themselves into a jam.

Originally Posted by Lisa Endza

Yes, the International SOP for Inspecting Commercial Properties is regularly pointed to (in court) as the standard by which inspectors should inspect commercial properties to. Many home inspectors trying to enter the commercial inspection business, erroneously try to apply their residential SOP to a commercial property inspection and get themselves into a jam.

Hi Lisa,

Can you cite a court case that this has happened in? It should not be difficult if this SOP is pointed to in various courts around the country. If the courts are recognizing a second standard for commercial inspections this is something we all need to know about and be able to cite as needed.

Scott, you are ignorant of the role of our judicial branch. A judge doesn't print off an SOP and nail it to a courthouse wall under a big "Recognized" sign.

More realistically, one party in a commercial property disupute will submit into evidence the International Standards of Practice for Inspecting Commercial Properties as the "industry standard." No argument has ever been proffered that the International Standards of Practice for Inspecting Commercial Properties is anything less than THEE industry standard for inspecting commercial properties, because it is the industry standard, worldwide.

Originally Posted by Scott Patterson

Hi Lisa,

Can you cite a court case that this has happened in? It should not be difficult if this SOP is pointed to in various courts around the country. If the courts are recognizing a second standard for commercial inspections this is something we all need to know about and be able to cite as needed.

At the moment it means nothing. Don't you think we would have heard of such a credible story before Lisa was so kind to put it to us.

If this was the standard I think the world would have known about it thru the news for some time now.

This would be such tremendous news don't yeah think the folks doing commercial inspection in this country would have informed the rest of the Commercial inspection world.

This sounds like get the band wagon going because there are a few folks on the planet using this standard and lets get em all into NACHI and NACHI will be in control of thee standards.

NACHI controlling the world of inspection.

DONT YEAH THINK WE WOULD HAVE HEARD SOMETHING BY NOW if the world had excepted these standards.

Just not any home inspectors in the US that would have passed it on to everyone else already.

NACHI has a serious long way to go before it becomes the countries standards for commercial home inspections. Like Government nation wide type stuff.

I think I will start a new standard tomorrow and put it out there that the rest of the world is already excepting it and all are using these standards.

Pointed to means absolutely nothing until they are the adopted standards.

You cannot point standards out in court that are nationally and internationally excepted until the are

Pointed to...come on

I got pointed at the other day. I guess that makes me the excepted standard for what ever I was doing at the time.

Lisa

Why would you as a representative of a National Organization come on here and spout such undocumented and unsubstantiated remarks in the behalf of your Organization. Completely unprofessional. I have never seen anything like it.

Put up the substantiated proof. Tell us where this has become the international standard or just some standard that some might adhere to. Pointed to in court means absolutely nothing.

Judge

And these standards you say are the excepted standards. Excepted by whom. What country, state, county, city town state licensing board etc etc etc.

Which one of the above has adopted these standards. Please don't give a few commercial inspector names. It would mean nothing.

Say it long enough and loud enough and all will believe and fall in line!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by Lisa Endza

Scott, you are ignorant of the role of our judicial branch. A judge doesn't print off an SOP and nail it to a courthouse wall under a big "Recognized" sign.

More realistically, one party in a commercial property disupute will submit into evidence the International Standards of Practice for Inspecting Commercial Properties as the "industry standard." No argument has ever been proffered that the International Standards of Practice for Inspecting Commercial Properties is anything less than THEE industry standard for inspecting commercial properties, because it is the industry standard, worldwide.

What kind of crap is that

Seriously

You need to go back to your employer and get a better low down on the get down and get down to proof.

What the heck do you think judges or juries make their decisions on. Yep that is it. Standards that an individual or more to the point states now adays. There would be something in a court ruling somewhere about a standard not being followed.

Scott????? Ignorant? It is ignorant for you to say so with out puting forth details.

Spit out the details.

Well, thanks everyone for all that wonderful help, and please forget that I asked. (You guys do get your blood pressure checked regularly, right?)

I'm not sure how you define "recognized." It is regularly submitted as an industry standard in courts and uncontested as such.

As far as we can tell, most commercial property inspections are done to this International Standards of Practice for Inspecting Commercial Properties. Now I admit, this may be true simply because InterNACHI is big into commercial inspections, so naturally our SOP would be used the most.

And, the ComInspect Network uses it.

And, Inspector Outlet reports that it is their best selling book.

And, the major inspection reporting software companies (Home Inspector Pro, 3D, HomeGauge) have all developed commercial software based on this standard.

And it is published in various languages and used all over the world.

And, of course, the largest inspection trade association uses it exclusively.

And, it is larger, more comprehensive, and more robust than anything else out there.

And again, 13 of the states that license home inspectors have awarded CE approval for the commercial inspection courses that are based on this standard.

I can go on and on, but I'd say that International Standards of Practice for Inspecting Commercial Properties - InterNACHI is the "industry standard" for inspecting commercial properties.

Originally Posted by Lisa Endza

I'm not sure how you define "recognized." It is regularly submitted as an industry standard in courts and uncontested as such.

As far as we can tell, most commercial property inspections are done to this International Standards of Practice for Inspecting Commercial Properties. Now I admit, this may be true simply because InterNACHI is big into commercial inspections, so naturally our SOP would be used the most.

And, the ComInspect Network uses it.

And, Inspector Outlet reports that it is their best selling book.

And, the major inspection reporting software companies (Home Inspector Pro, 3D, HomeGauge) have all developed commercial software based on this standard.

And it is published in various languages and used all over the world.

And, of course, the largest inspection trade association uses it exclusively.

And, it is larger, more comprehensive, and more robust than anything else out there.

And again, 13 of the states that license home inspectors have awarded CE approval for the commercial inspection courses that are based on this standard.

I can go on and on, but I'd say that International Standards of Practice for Inspecting Commercial Properties - InterNACHI is the "industry standard" for inspecting commercial properties.

So Lisa. Just give us a duufus vs. dumbo case where inachi was presented in the proceedings. We don't need a letter from the Judge telling us it's a great standard. Just cite a case. It is all public information.

John Ghent, that would do you no good. In nearly all cases, documents submitted into evidence are not digitized and made public by the courts, only pleadings are. In fact, many courts are now returning all documents submitted into evidence back to the parties and telling them that they have permission to destroy them after the appeal window has closed.

You would however, be able to discover in the public record, every motion where the International Standards of Practice for Inspecting Commercial Properties was contested as an industry standard, but you won't find such a record because it is the industry standard for reasons I explained earlier and others.

Originally Posted by Lisa Endza

Scott, you are ignorant of the role of our judicial branch. A judge doesn't print off an SOP and nail it to a courthouse wall under a big "Recognized" sign.

More realistically, one party in a commercial property disupute will submit into evidence the International Standards of Practice for Inspecting Commercial Properties as the "industry standard." No argument has ever been proffered that the International Standards of Practice for Inspecting Commercial Properties is anything less than THEE industry standard for inspecting commercial properties, because it is the industry standard, worldwide.

Hi Lisa,

Thank you for the thoughtful and educated response. It goes a long way in establishing your organization's credibility.

Originally Posted by Lisa Endza

John Ghent, that would do you no good. In nearly all cases, documents submitted into evidence are not digitized and made public by the courts, only pleadings are. In fact, many courts are now returning all documents submitted into evidence back to the parties and telling them that they have permission to destroy them after the appeal window has closed.

You would however, be able to discover in the public record, every motion where the International Standards of Practice for Inspecting Commercial Properties was contested as an industry standard, but you won't find such a record because it is the industry standard for reasons I explained earlier and others.

Lisa, if your standards were admitted they would be listed in the case documents as such. ASTM is listed all of the time, just like ASHI's SoP's have been admitted over the years as the standard of the profession.

Most legal documents are scanned and maintained with case management software, such as CaseLogistic's, Summation and a few others.

A quick Google search of Commercial Building Inspection Standards and Building Inspection Standards did not turn up your organization's standards. If they are so widely used I would have thought they would be on the first page of a search...... Care to comment or make an excuse as to why they are not?

SP: I think you may have meant CaseLogistix and perhaps one of CT Summation's software programs such as iBlaze ?

Originally Posted by Lisa Endza

John Ghent, that would do you no good. In nearly all cases, documents submitted into evidence are not digitized and made public by the courts, only pleadings are. In fact, many courts are now returning all documents submitted into evidence back to the parties and telling them that they have permission to destroy them after the appeal window has closed.

You would however, be able to discover in the public record, every motion where the International Standards of Practice for Inspecting Commercial Properties was contested as an industry standard, but you won't find such a record because it is the industry standard for reasons I explained earlier and others.

This would be comical if it wasn't so pitiful. If one presents a comprehensive statement as fact, one should be ready to cite references to substantiate the declaration. This is not a pick-on-Nick excuse me, InterNacho, response. Anyone who made the statements that you have to THIS group would receive the same treatment.

It was your choice of wording that started this. I don't think I, or anyone would have much to say if you had just pointed to the iNACHI standard and suggested that it may be useful. But your pontification was a too much to let go. What is your title? Director of Communications?

Originally Posted by Lisa Endza

John Ghent, that would do you no good. In nearly all cases, documents submitted into evidence are not digitized and made public by the courts, only pleadings are. In fact, many courts are now returning all documents submitted into evidence back to the parties and telling them that they have permission to destroy them after the appeal window has closed.

You would however, be able to discover in the public record, every motion where the International Standards of Practice for Inspecting Commercial Properties was contested as an industry standard, but you won't find such a record because it is the industry standard for reasons I explained earlier and others.

Just because some people use it and some states (not sure which ones) give credits for does not mean it is the states standards and are not questioned. Just because a couple of software companies that make home inspection software add it to there reporting, does not make it a national standard/international standard.

ComInspect using it does not make it an international standard. I drive a ford to work. It does not make it the international standard that all home inspectors must adhere to.

You did not say one thing that says it is an international standard that everyone accepts.

The first state in the United States, TX, has not adopted it as a state standard and you did not say one thing that says any state has.

Keep trying.

"You would however, be able to discover in the public record, every motion where the International Standards of Practice for Inspecting Commercial Properties was contested as an industry standard, but you won't find such a record because it is the industry standard for reasons I explained earlier and others."

Let me see.....A standard that has never...I repeat....NEVER been contested???

Every standard on just about everything has been contested.

If there is a court case out there where the standards were put forth then there would be a record somewhere.....especially if it was presented as a standard to be held accountable for. Your boss would be advertising it all over the planet and not just thru you on this board.

Oh thats right there are no records anywhere for any reason because this is the end all standard that no one ever contests.

If an inspector was brought into court and he said in court that he went by such and such standards there would be a record somewhere. Again, advertised tremendously that the standards are the international standards that no one ever questions.

Or is it that they are not the standards that are internationally recognized and that is why there is no mention. Because they were not accepted by the courts as an International Standard recognized by that court or any other court in the US

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

SP: I think you may have meant CaseLogistix and perhaps one of CT Summation's software programs such as iBlaze ?

Yep, I can never get their name correct and my wife worked for the developers for several years!

Originally Posted by Dan Harris

Up held all the time? Considering that ole nicko drempt up his commercial standards less than a year ago, they've already been used in court, and upheld already? I'm leaning to inspecting jet fuels.
I'm not sure if I would want to consider inspecting commercial properties.
I'm leaning to inspecting jet fuels, at least those lawsuits may take a few years.

Nick must have discovered how to warp the space-time continuum. Faster than light speed travel. I think someone from one of those 55 countries, perhaps Bangladesh, helped him.

Originally Posted by Stuart Brooks

It was your choice of wording that started this. I don't think I, or anyone would have much to say if you had just pointed to the iNACHI standard and suggested that it may be useful. But your pontification was a too much to let go. What is your title? Director of Communications?

The more I read lisa's posts the more I believe lisa is nicko.
If the two of them think and post the same BS, nacho make believe inspector land, is in a world of hurting.

Originally Posted by Lisa Endza

And, Inspector Outlet reports that it is their best selling book.

.

Lisa.. We are supposed to belive what Inspector Outlet reports to you ?
Who owns Inspector Outlet?

Originally Posted by Wm Denslow

Well, thanks everyone for all that wonderful help, and please forget that I asked. (You guys do get your blood pressure checked regularly, right?)

Don't feel bad about asking questions, that's what makes this the best open to all, non censered HI site.

This was a good one since once again lisa exposed nickies club for what it is. All BS with nothing but more BS and name calling to back it up.
With the recent desperate marketing posts by Lisa, it's looking more and more like, soon to be what it was.

Due to the large variance in commerial building. And the different level of what a commerical buyer wants, I do not and will not use any of the SOPs I have read, This is like a moistue intursion or stucco or other special inspections i perform

When doing this on a commicerail building i will use something similar to my stucco language scope of work comment:

Per your request a visual examination of the above property was performed for the purpose of determining within reasonable limits, the general condition of representative samples of the exterior stucco system of the above property. Our goal is to discover as much about the exterior cladding system being reviewed as possible, given the limitations of time and accessibility. This report is a description of the visible and apparent condition of the applicable cladding system and accessories. When making a visual inspection it is required that certain assumptions be made regarding the existing conditions. Some of these assumptions are not verifiable without expending additional sums of money, or destroying adequate and serviceable portions of the building or finish material. The condition of the hidden systems (footings, piers, framing, etc.) is not known. Because of the type of cladding system that stucco is, the initial signs of moisture entry may be concealed within the walls and not immediately visible. On stucco systems, rot can work from the inside out, rather than working its way inward, such as on a house clad with wood siding.


Our examination is based on our interpretation of the industry standard of groups like NAHB (National Association of Home Builders), EIMA (EIFS Industry Members Association), EDI (Exterior Design Institute), and our opinion of accepted building practices and standard installation or repair techniques. Our inspections is primarily visual and limited by time, and accordingly conditions which would require inspection or testing by physical or destructive means (other than moisture probing), might not have been observed. Except as expressly stated in this report, no opinions were given as to any future conditions of the premises. Where opinions are given, it is understood these are opinions only and are not to be construed as a prediction of future conditions nor a guaranty or warranty.

Originally Posted by Wm Denslow

Well, thanks everyone for all that wonderful help, and please forget that I asked. (You guys do get your blood pressure checked regularly, right?)

You'll find that there are amateur lawyers and self professed experts that seem think that ridicule and condescension makes them more credible than anyone else.

The home inspection industry refused to recognize ASTM as the appropriate body to create an SOP for home inspections. I assert that if commercial inspectors had been as organized as home inspectors at the time, they (we) would have done the same thing.

Originally Posted by Lisa Endza

And, the major inspection reporting software companies (Home Inspector Pro, 3D, HomeGauge) have all developed commercial software based on this standard.

Lisa,

Please check you facts. I have been involved with 3D for several years as a re-seller, form developer and Focus Developer and I know of NO ONE who who has developed a commercial software base on your standard, ASTM standards yes. NACHI standards No

Please provide the names of and the products based on you standards with 3D

Chuck

Lisa: It appears that you did not survive this one . . .

Originally Posted by David Nice

You'll find that there are amateur lawyers and self professed experts that seem think that ridicule and condescension makes them more credible than anyone else.
.

Quote by lisa: Scott, you are ignorant of the role of our judicial branch."


David.. I see you may be starting to see the light.

Originally Posted by A.D. Miller

Lisa: It appears that you did not survive this one . . .

AD proves my point "graphically"!

Originally Posted by Dan Harris

Quote by lisa: Scott, you are ignorant of the role of our judicial branch."


David.. I see you may be starting to see the light.

Sorry Dan , Lisa was merely stating a fact. Based on what Scott said, it is clear that he doesn't understand the role of the courts in such matters. If he does understand the court's role, then he is clearly playing "gotcha" instead of making an intelligent comparison of the document being discussed and who recognizes them.

Personally I think Scott doesn't completely grasp the role of the courts AND he is playing "gotcha". He is Oh So Clever at doing that in a most subtle and nuanced way.

Lisa is an intelligent women who knows what she is talking about. Efforts to portray her as some kind of pseudo "know it all" sock puppet of Nick's is extremely offensive. The real "know it all" is the kind whose personal sense of expertise, on nearly all subject (big and small), is so over inflated, and yet so fragile that it requires a regular dose of trying to prove others wrong with both obvious and subtle insults and attempts to undermine those they have decided (in their ignorance), have been, are now and will forever be considered their enemies and the enemy of what they foolishly insist is the current industry "correctness".

Yet through all the puffery and pseudo intellectual jargon, these very people are clueless as to how very transparent they are through their antics, to many others who read their posts.

I have not heard from many others here, who have actually read and compared both documents and objectively recognized exactly what Lisa has pointed out. Anyone with a modicum of common sense and technical knowledge would clearly see the superior value of the "International Standards of Practice for Inspecting Commercial Properties" to commercial inspectors over the ASTM document.

The minds that are closed to accepting any document coming from, or related to InterNACHI certainly cannot approach the subject objectively. Fortunately ASTM is not the home 7 commercial inspection God. There are an ever increasing number of intelligent, professional and objective parties related to the commercial inspection industry who are not looking at the ISOPICP through the same tainted glasses as a certain element here does.

I see this element as a small (but tight-knit) group of inspectors that keep clinging to the proverbial square peg while the world has moved on to round holes. They can just keep on hammering it, but it just wont fit anymore! It is ancient history!

Originally Posted by David Nice

Lisa was merely stating a fact. Based on what Scott said, it is clear that he doesn't understand the role of the courts in such matters.

Let me get this straight:
- 1) Lisa says their standard is used in court.
- 2) Scott asks for Lisa to provide documentation.
- 3) Lisa does not provide that documentation.
- 4) Scott is now accused of not knowing about what he is talking about by those who obviously have no idea what is going on and who refuse to, or cannot, provide the requested documentation (I'm not sure which it is but am sure they do know which it is, and I doubt that it is 'refuse to' ).
- 5) Unless, and until, Lisa provides that documentation Scott request, David's pleadings fall far short of the bench as there is no supporting documentation that such claim is substantiated, meaning that such claim is not accepted by the court of the readers of this board.
- 6) Resulting in the pleadings of David being entered into evidence as the rantings of a lunatic who always supports the unknown as though it were fact, even though it contradicts known and established fact.
- Bailiff, please remove the lunatic from the courtroom, this is not the type of court where a court jester is accepted or looked to for comedic relief.

Originally Posted by David Nice

I see this element as a small (but tight-knit) group of inspectors that keep clinging to the proverbial square peg while the world has moved on to round holes. They can just keep on hammering it, but it just wont fit anymore! It is ancient history!

.
Thanks For Stopping By.
.

Originally Posted by David Nice

Sorry Dan , Lisa was merely stating a fact. Based on what Scott said, it is clear that he doesn't understand the role of the courts in such matters. If he does understand the court's role, then he is clearly playing "gotcha" instead of making an intelligent comparison of the document being discussed and who recognizes them.

Personally I think Scott doesn't completely grasp the role of the courts AND he is playing "gotcha". He is Oh So Clever at doing that in a most subtle and nuanced way.

Lisa is an intelligent women who knows what she is talking about. Efforts to portray her as some kind of pseudo "know it all" sock puppet of Nick's is extremely offensive. The real "know it all" is the kind whose personal sense of expertise, on nearly all subject (big and small), is so over inflated, and yet so fragile that it requires a regular dose of trying to prove others wrong with both obvious and subtle insults and attempts to undermine those they have decided (in their ignorance), have been, are now and will forever be considered their enemies and the enemy of what they foolishly insist is the current industry "correctness".

Yet through all the puffery and pseudo intellectual jargon, these very people are clueless as to how very transparent they are through their antics, to many others who read their posts.

I have not heard from many others here, who have actually read and compared both documents and objectively recognized exactly what Lisa has pointed out. Anyone with a modicum of common sense and technical knowledge would clearly see the superior value of the "International Standards of Practice for Inspecting Commercial Properties" to commercial inspectors over the ASTM document.

The minds that are closed to accepting any document coming from, or related to InterNACHI certainly cannot approach the subject objectively. Fortunately ASTM is not the home 7 commercial inspection God. There are an ever increasing number of intelligent, professional and objective parties related to the commercial inspection industry who are not looking at the ISOPICP through the same tainted glasses as a certain element here does.

I see this element as a small (but tight-knit) group of inspectors that keep clinging to the proverbial square peg while the world has moved on to round holes. They can just keep on hammering it, but it just wont fit anymore! It is ancient history!

Hi David,

I don't think we have ever met or even spoken to each other. Could be we have traded a few post over the past few years you have been inspecting, but I don't recall them.

Anyway, it is very apparent that you are bias to anything and everything iNACHI. It makes no difference to me, but if you are as astute to how things are in the legal world you would know that folks who work in litigation support such as myself must be unbiased and rely on factual and documented information.

As for Lisa, I have never had the pleasure of meeting her. Apparentl you have, as you speak so highly of her and you were offended by what was posted. She has made her bed and now she must lay in it, good bad or indifferent. Guilt by association can be very damning.

Scott
You did not mention (so I will), that Lisa's job is to show NACHI in a positive way. Right or wrong, good or bad, she is going to put a spin on it. It attracts the naive wannabes that are gullible enough to believe it, as well as people like David.

David,

I do not post a response on this thread to bash anyone, especially Lisa or INACHI. I view the statements made by the "Director of Communications" as misleading and alluding to our readers.

Yes, ASTM 2018 is outdated (Just take a look at there standard for determining leaks in roofing using an IR camera - in the days of law enforcement having the only commercial IR available - hovering 1000 ft above the roof "camera with helicopter attachment...). In the "true" commercial field your standards will never hold up to an inspection for the clients or the Real Estate Transaction Process.

Yes, your statement that home inspectors are increasingly conducting commercial (being called for by clients...) inspections only armed with a Residential SOP is quite correct.

I believe (personal) that your good intentions in the creation of ISOPCP is only pandering to those who are currently using HI for their benefit. There is a BIG, BIG difference between a Residential inspection and a Commercial inspection. In most counties, states and or local jurisdictions even if you operate in a residential structure, once falling under a commercial operation you are bound to comply with rulings which are well beyond the average HI capabilities. They need an inspection and select the low cost, least qualified solution - we are cheap and carry insurance as well!

I reviewed your ISOPCP and concluded it as just being a Residential SOP modified slightly. Looking deeper into it and the reporting statement requirements, you folks are way out-of-date. The reporting format for commercial property has already been established and endorsed by most of the major stakeholders in the commercial facility business. It is currently undergoing implementation.

I looked into ComInspect Network - this is one of Nicks setups. Of course he will endorse it. Why not be upfront and disclose this as Director of Communications. Accepted in many states! Checked one at random, selected New Jersey - all documents where from the HOME... section endorsing your training programs. No mention of "commercial" standards in the slightest.

Represented and endorsed in 55 countries??? There is absolutely no chance that any Asian/China country would hold the ISOPCP up as a defense - bare in mind the penalty for poor inspection that leads to a death is "off-with-your-head" in these countries. Where is the French version of these standards or a Dutch version ...etc..???

If ISOPCP is a worthy document it will become accepted by it contents. Not everything has to be a sell, sell game. The document must be able to stand on its own merit.

Regards - Richard

Good Job Richard

Originally Posted by Scott Patterson

Hi David,

I don't think we have ever met or even spoken to each other. Could be we have traded a few post over the past few years you have been inspecting, but I don't recall them.

Anyway, it is very apparent that you are bias to anything and everything InterNACHI. It makes no difference to me, but if you are as astute to how things are in the legal world you would know that folks who work in litigation support such as myself must be unbiased and rely on factual and documented information.

As for Lisa, I have never had the pleasure of meeting her. Apparentl you have, as you speak so highly of her and you were offended by what was posted. She has made her bed and now she must lay in it, good bad or indifferent. Guilt by association can be very damning.

I have followed various discussions in various places and found that you have shown both overt and covert bias against anything InterNACHI and it's members for a very long time. In this case it is again, the pot calling the kettle black.

I know that folks who work in litigation support need only APPEAR to be unbiased. They also do not get to pick and choose what documentation (which may or may not be factual) they must rely on. To suggest that because you working in that area is somehow evidence that you are (in fact) unbiased is ludicrous.

When it comes to Lisa ...here is the deal. I have yet to meet one single person who even comes anywhere even close to the energy and effort Lisa puts out (day in and day out) in support of and on behalf of inspectors. I would not want her to run down everything you ask her to as proof, since you and I both know that no matter what she produced, you would go to great lengths to find it inadequate to satisfy you, and therefore should not satisfy anyone in the industry.

Because she doesn't drop anything to respond to what you think must be answered to prove the worth and acceptance of the ISOP only means that yet another trap has been set and her failure to respond with what you want, when you want it now proves something if she did respond with what you wanted, we both know that you. I hope she does not take any time away from her duties to try to pacify anyone here because it is futile.

I think Lisa is aware that these are shark infested waters but she probably only knows a few by name. And then there are those sharks that are in near to full disguise and know how to present their opinions as authoritative when they could not be further from the truth.

Now it appears that the floodgates are opening to people who will now claim to have studied and compared the documents in an unbiased way. Right on Que. I guess a few of you are quite proud of your efforts to drive away those who you decide are unwanted. Unfortunately hanging out amongst only those of the same opinions is tantamount to intellectual incest. NO matter how much the "square peggers" unite, it is not going to help make them fit into the round holes.

Originally Posted by David Nice

.
. Right on Que.

I guess a few of you are quite proud of your efforts to drive away those who you decide are unwanted..

.
Bla, Bla, Bla,
* keep drinking the Kool-Aid.
.

Originally Posted by Billy Stephens

.
Bla, Bla, Bla,
* keep drinking the Kool-Aid.
.

Your sense of humor is underwhelming. It is amazing how many find the need to make jokes at the expense of others. It shows insecurity and immaturity. Sorry things are not going well for you.

Talk, talk, talk.

It seems plain to this old redneck country boy.

If International Standards of Practice for Inspecting Commercial Properties - InterNACHI, has been upheld in court put up the court record or the case number.

We are asking for facts, not talk

It's funny how the InterNachi inspectors always seem to reference ASHI on their websites, however the ASHI inspectors will never reference InterNachi.

Originally Posted by David Nice

I have followed various discussions in various places and found that you have shown both overt and covert bias against anything InterNACHI and it's members for a very long time. In this case it is again, the pot calling the kettle black.

Now it appears that the floodgates are opening to people who will now claim to have studied and compared the documents in an unbiased way. Right on Que. I guess a few of you are quite proud of your efforts to drive away those who you decide are unwanted.
.

David. All that was asked was provide proof of a statment made by another poster. Like stated, it dosen't matter who made the post.

Quote [ below] from a nacho long time member on his brandy new commerical inspection site, this site also lists another long time member that is an approved nicko education provider
" Our Commercial Building Inspections conform to ASTM E2018-08, which is an Industry Standard for a Comprehensive Baseline Property Condition Assessment. "


Drive away the unwanted?
One group of inspectors biased against other inspectors?
I don't know of anyone here that would not enjoy having another blind, dumb, stupid scum bag inspector, that should be killed if they don't buy an on-line Home Inspector Certificiation join us.

Lisa and David:

Originally Posted by David Nice

I have followed various discussions in various places and found that you have shown both overt and covert bias against anything InterNACHI and it's members for a very long time. In this case it is again, the pot calling the kettle black.

Hi David,
I don't care about a persons professional affiliation. What I care about are false statements and untruths that hurt our profession. I have many friends who belong to iNACHI, I have even had a drink or two with Nick and shared a donut(Bearclaw for those taking notes) and coffee with the man.

Sure, back in the early days I had many words to say about INACHI in retaliation to what was being said about the organization I was a member of. That was then and this is now...... I'm older, wiser and I had a personal tragedy in my life many years back that changed my prospective on just about everything.

Now back to the original issue at hand; all that was asked was for Lisa to post a simple cite to backup her statement. If that can not be done then it must be assumed that she misspoke, it is puffery or she simply made a mistake. Nobody is insulting or trying to humiliate anyone it is a fairly simple matter.

Originally Posted by Scott Patterson

Hi David,
I don't care about a persons professional affiliation. What I care about are false statements and untruths that hurt our profession...

Now back to the original issue at hand; all that was asked was for Lisa to post a simple cite to backup her statement. If that can not be done then it must be assumed that she misspoke...

Don't assume anything based on the fact that Lisa didn't just fly right back here to post what you asked for. I'm surprised that she had the time to post anything here in the first place. She is spread too thin as it is.

Originally Posted by Dan Harris

I don't know of anyone here that would not enjoy having another blind, dumb, stupid scum bag inspector, that should be killed if they don't buy an on-line Home Inspector Certificiation join us.

Especially those who cannot spell certification!

Originally Posted by Dan Harris

" Our Commercial Building Inspections conform to ASTM E2018-08, which is an Industry Standard for a Comprehensive Baseline Property Condition Assessment. "

Isn't "Comprehensive" and "Baseline" an oxymoron? A baseline is usually an initial set of observations or data, or a starting point. Not a good choice of words as a comprehensive assessment would require going well beyond any baseline.

Originally Posted by David Nice

Isn't "Comprehensive" and "Baseline" an oxymoron? A baseline is usually an initial set of observations or data, or a starting point. Not a good choice of words as a comprehensive assessment would require going well beyond any baseline.

I Dunno.. Nicki certified both of the inspectors listed on the website

Originally Posted by Dan Harris

I Dunno.. Nicki certified both of the inspectors listed on the website

I'm sure that reading and editing all members websites is in his job description. Apparently that is your job. Gee, maybe you should become a member and contribute instead of taking potshots every chance you get. On second thought...never mind. Your having too much fun already.

I don't have any more time for this right now, so knock yourself out.

Originally Posted by David Nice

I'm sure that reading and editing all members websites is in his job description. Apparently that is your job. Gee, maybe you should become a member and contribute instead of taking potshots every chance you get. On second thought...never mind. Your having too much fun already.

I don't have any more time for this right now, so knock yourself out.

Huuuh.. I don't recall spell or word checking anybodys sites or posts.

Here's an idea, proof-read your own shtt.

Back to the original question of where to get ASTM E1018: Purchasing it through ASTM is one way that has already been suggested. $53 is a little steep for a 35 page pdf. A second way, which I use quite often, and which is legal, is to visit your local university library (or larger public library). I'm fortunate to live near a several engineering universities. The university down the street from me has a subscription to all ASTM standards, available on-line via the terminals in their library. The general public is free to walk in and use the library.

Also, quite accidentally, I ran across the following link: http://www.hawaiiinspectiongroup.com...sment%20Pr.pdf

It's not my website, so don't yell at me for copywright infringement. Also, it's a link to the 2001 version. There's now an 08 version, which I suggest that you either purchase or obtain at your local library.

Thank you, Steve - excellent suggestion and link.

Originally Posted by Steve Frederickson

Back to the original question of where to get ASTM E1018: Purchasing it through ASTM is one way that has already been suggested. $53 is a little steep for a 35 page pdf. A second way, which I use quite often, and which is legal, is to visit your local university library (or larger public library). I'm fortunate to live near a several engineering universities. The university down the street from me has a subscription to all ASTM standards, available on-line via the terminals in their library. The general public is free to walk in and use the library.

Also, quite accidentally, I ran across the following link: http://www.hawaiiinspectiongroup.com...sment%20Pr.pdf

It's not my website, so don't yell at me for copywright infringement. Also, it's a link to the 2001 version. There's now an 08 version, which I suggest that you either purchase or obtain at your local library.

Obtaining it at your local library for PERSON use and not for any profit is one thing, but STEALING IT FOR BUSINESS USE is in violation of the copyright laws and falls outside the Fair Use doctrine.

As professional HOME INSPECTORS I hope you do not go around telling other it is okay to STEAL THE WORK OF OTHERS, and then bitch and moan about people using your reports for other inspections and purchasers who were not your original clients ... THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ARE RECOMMENDING be done to ASTM.

STINKS when it is your foot is in it, doesn't it?

Wow! This is one of the major reasons I hardly ever post here.. because I'm tired of the endless critical threads that waste my time.

I simply directed someone to a location where they could find a copy. Why do you think it's available in the library? For someone not to read it?
Once they read it, they can make an informed decision as to whether or not they want to use it, at which point they should purchase a copy.

Originally Posted by Steve Frederickson

Back to the original question of where to get ASTM E1018: Purchasing it through ASTM is one way that has already been suggested. $53 is a little steep for a 35 page pdf. A second way, which I use quite often, and which is legal, is to visit your local university library (or larger public library). I'm fortunate to live near a several engineering universities. The university down the street from me has a subscription to all ASTM standards, available on-line via the terminals in their library. The general public is free to walk in and use the library.

Also, quite accidentally, I ran across the following link: http://www.hawaiiinspectiongroup.com...sment%20Pr.pdf

It's not my website, so don't yell at me for copywright infringement. Also, it's a link to the 2001 version. There's now an 08 version, which I suggest that you either purchase or obtain at your local library.

Originally Posted by Steve Frederickson

Wow! This is one of the major reasons I hardly ever post here.. because I'm tired of the endless critical threads that waste my time.

Maybe you should make sure you word YOUR posts to make sure that YOU are not encouraging an illegal use of copyrighted material, and THEN you might have a reason to complain - not likely, but until you do such you do not have any reason to complain.

I simply directed someone to a location where they could find a copy. Why do you think it's available in the library? For someone not to read it?
Once they read it, they can make an informed decision as to whether or not they want to use it, at which point they should purchase a copy.

That was not what you simply did. You directed them to where they could get a copy for free.

THIS is what YOU said:

Purchasing it through ASTM is one way that has already been suggested. $53 is a little steep for a 35 page pdf. A second way, which I use quite often, and which is legal, is to visit your local university library (or larger public library).

To which *I* replied that it was NOT legal to get a copy that way - doing that is STEALING, just like if someone were to steal your report for another use without paying you for it. Would you like that? Or is your complaining meaning that you find that is okay and you would not have a problem with a seller or agent re-using your reports time and again?

I apparently hit a touchy nerve as I doubt you would look kindly at seller or agents doing that with your reports.

L.E.:

Doesn't "Director of Communications" of Inter-Nachi include "MARKETING"? When wearing more than one hat - and retaining "credibility" to both the trade & press one should be careful with the puffing "Ad-Men" (or women) remarks.

Generally accepted.

Have you any knowledge of the "Frye" standard (FL, IL, AZ, NY, PA & WA)?

Federal and most states also employ the "Daubert" (Daubert v Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals) standard regarding "experts", are you familiar with the
"Rule 702 trilogy" (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data; (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and
(3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case?

How long has this "new" InterNACHI "Standard" for Commercial Inspections been in existance? More importantly: HOW WAS IT DEVELOPED?

If you're looking to "promote" your employer and its products, instead of exagerated claims, you might start by sharing that basic information.

It would take some TIME for a case to come to trial, have a final disposition, be appealled, tested, etc.

I am really NOT interested in pre-trial SETTLEMENTS or some lower municipal administrative hearing, but not even such was offered. Can you provide even ONE published lower court ruling? Not even ONE unpublished lower court ruling? Something isn't "Tested" until it has met and withstood Appellate challenges, and oftentimes further review. How about a Federal District Court? Even one? A single case citation? A single venue? how about a list of more than one - since the claim involved multiple courtS (let alone differing jurisdictions in one state or country) in multiple countries!

Ms. Lisa has had no problem posting on strings multiple times per day, at all hours of the day and night in the past - and in a manner not the least bit "professional".

I suggest she get a handle on what expert testimony and credentialling is all about.

Peer review, known or potential error rate, existance AND MAINTENANCE of Standards and CONTROLS concerning operation, and the degree to which the technique or standard is GENERALLY ACCEPTED. CONSENSUS and REVIEW - something Nacho doesn't have. Outside auditing, etc. (Oh my Gosh, I read like R.W.!).

I pity the sorry bloke who learns the hard way defending such a "certificate", "credential" or NACHO "standard".

Is it just me, or is the whole Nicko organization tree becoming even more "Kevin Trudeau(sp?)-esque" (the ex-con, self-publishing, infomercial guru who backs many more "front" heads) then ever? Why is it anyone who questions even one bit of obvious overstatement, let alone downright falsehood, be instantly branded some sort of devious troublemaker?

Ms. Lisa or someone needs ONLY SUPPLY THE CITATIONS or RETRACT the erroneous overstatement. These other persons (or alter egos) serve to throw mud and attempt to derail the subject and BURY (e.g. HIDE) the unsupported exageration from Inter-NACHI's "Director of Communication" in more manure.

A short while back some paid advertising for Nacho appeared. I haven't seen it lately. At the very least something not-quite-right with a marketing/communications director posting PUFFING for an organization that SHOULD BE PAYING for the UNSOLICITED ADVERTISING/promotion for Inter-Nachi (N.G., et. al.) on this site.

Ms. Lisa or someone needs ONLY SUPPLY THE CITATIONS or RETRACT the erroneous overstatement.

HG: Wouldn't it be grand if it were so simple with these particular folks?

but STEALING IT FOR BUSINESS USE is in violation of the copyright laws and falls outside the Fair Use doctrine.

JP: And, how does that square with an attorney copying verbatim an entire copyrighted website and trotting it out to use as ammunition against an expert? Which, by the way, is perfectly legal.