housewhisperer

James With regard to the suggested contract provision with which you find fault, if the client is present or has signed and delivered the contract to you prior to the inspection, then that specific contract paragraph is obviously moot. Notwithstanding your characterization of me as having a “fixation on the CYA factor,â€

Great photos, Scott. I agree with Randy’s comments regarding the strength and durability of NMS cable. While the support system may not look pretty, if the fasteners are well-secured to the rafters and the supporting cable is installed so that its ends won’t separate from the fasteners, it will work. Supports should be installed every six feet or less. The horizontal portion of the PVC piping looks as if it’s sloped so that water draining from condensation, snowmelt, or rain won’t become trapped in the pipe or foul the fan and the fan appears to be mounted and secured in a manner that minimizes transfer of vibration to the structural framing of the building - so far, so good. The words “Radon Mitigation Systemâ€

We all endeavor to to obtain a signed contract before performing the inspection and many, if not most, inspectors have a firm policy of not performing an inspection unless the contract has been signed (the best and safest policy). However, inclusion of the following language in the inspection contract adds an additional layer of protection. "Acceptance of the Inspection Report by any party shall constitute acceptance of the terms and conditions of this Contract as if signed by that party and shall constitute authorization to any person signing as Client to act as an agent in agreeing to the terms and conditions. This contract is binding on Client, Client's spouse, heirs, distributees, guardians, legal representative, successors and assigns."

I always taught both my employee inspectors and my students the importance of understanding the basic report writing ground rules established by the standard of practice which applied to their work. In the case of my company those rules were those of the ASHI Standards. In my teaching the ground rules were those of the State of Arizona Standards. The October 2006 ASHI Standards state: “These Standards of Practice are not intended to limit inspectors from: B. designing or specifying repairs, [sic] provided the inspector is appropriately qualified and willing to do so.â€

Is anyone interested in posting a few photos of some very obvious conditions which would warrant comment in an inspection report? Each condition should be clearly identifiable from a single photo. Individual inspectors who want to participate in the exercise can post the language they would use to specifically identify the component(s) in question, to describe the condition(s), and to recommend an appropriate action. Comments about one another's posts should address specific pros and cons and the cons should be accompanied by suggested changes/revisions for improvement.

Brian, I have no problem with anyone taking your approach - asking for a copy of the written authorization from the client. I think that the situation is so exceptional that whatever business decision an individual inspectors make regarding this situation, as long as they have a copy of the document authorizing someone else to sign on the client's behalf or the document I discussed is fine. What matters is that inspectors get some sort of document to protect themselves. Gotta love this forum for the excellent exchange of information and ideas.

I agree, Jim. It's getting easier and easier to get a signed contract before the inspection, particularly since the enactment in 2000 of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act. Known as "E-SIGN," this federal law gives electronic signatures, contracts and records the same validity as their handwritten and hard copy counterparts. Therefore, the use of the document I described would be only as a last resort. That being said, it doesn't hurt to have a few two-part NCR "Authorization to Sign" forms in a folder in your vehicle just in case.

A reasonable point. The sample document I posted is verbatim from an attorney. I shared the same concern you expressed and he said that, under the circumstances, if the agent states that he or she is, in fact, so authorized and is willing to put pen to paper on a document such as the one I posted, then, if the agent is lying, the issue is between the agent and the client. There have been circumstances where I have never met, seen, or communicated with a client because the client is traveling overseas or otherwise out of contact. The client has authorized the agent to act as his or her representative. The agent has scheduled the inspection, attended the inspection, signed the authorization document, and received the report. I asked the attorney if I should require the agent to produce a copy of the document authorizing him or her to act on behalf of the client and he said it is not necessary. That's all I can tell you.

The name(s) on the contract is/are the party(ies) for whom the work is performed. If Bob Smith wants you to inspect a home for him, he is your client/customer and his name goes on the contract. Bob, or his authorized representative, must sign the contract. If Betty Jones writes the check for payment of the services you performed for Bob Smith, that's between Betty and Bob. Just note that payment was received and from whom it was received. The name which appears on your contract in the space designated for the name of the client is your client, regardless of who pays. If someone else states that he or she is authorized to sign the contract on behalf of your client, it's a good idea to have that individual also sign a simple document such as the one below, stating that they are so authorized. My signature below acknowledges that I am authorized by _______________________ (Client) to sign the (company name) "HOME INSPECTION CONTRACT" for inspection of the property located at ____________________________________________________________________ (Subject property) on behalf of the above referenced Client and to receive a copy of the inspection report. ____________________________________________ (Authorized individual) __________________ (Date)

A contract is a mutual agreement between two or more competent parties to do something which is legal, such as an act, forbearance, or a return promise, for sufficient consideration. "Mutual agreement" implies that all of the parties to the contract are in agreement with regard to the terms and conditions of the contract. "Competent parties" implies that all of the parties to the contract are legally competent to enter into the agreement. For example, in Colorado, individuals under the age of eighteen are not legally competent to enter into contracts. "To do something" implies a mutual obligation on the part of all parties to the contract - a this-for-that or quid pro quo. "Legality" implies that the duties of all of the parties to the contract must be legal and that the contract must be enforceable or otherwise recognizable at law. If Bob enters into a contract with Bill and pays Bill to kill George and then, Bill runs away with the money but doesn't kill George, Bob can't sue Bill for breach of contract since killing people is illegal. Therefore, the contract isn't enforceable or recognizable at law. "Consideration" implies that there is an exchange between the parties to the contract which is fair, reasonable, and sufficient. Here's a place where a contract can get sticky because "fair, reasonable, and sufficient" are subjective. Take the example of an inspection company which uses a negotiated contract, one which offers a client two options - one is an option of an inspection for which the liability of the inspection company is limited to the inspection fee and the other is an option to remove the limitation on liability for an additional fee. If the additional fee for removal of the limitation on liability is so high that no one would ever consider it, the courts will very likely find that it's not a legitimate negotiated contract because the additional fee was not fair or reasonable. Every inspector I've spoken with whose company uses this type of negotiated contract has told me that no client has ever opted to pay the additional fee for the removal of the limitation on liability. Therefore, a negotiated contract can provide an additional layer of protection for inspection companies who wish to limit their liability to the inspection fee. In the event that a client doesn't choose to pay the additional fee to remove the limitation on liability and later seeks damages for negligence greater than the inspection fee, the negotiated contract permits the inspection company to point out that there was no coercion involved. Even if the client was up against a time deadline with regard to the real estate contract inspection contingency and claims that "he had no choice but to sign a contract limiting the inspection company's liability," the inspection company can legitimately counter that it offered an option to remove the limitation on liability. Attorneys seem to view a fee of $500.00 to $750.00 in addition to the normal inspection fee as reasonable under the same theory that insurance companies charge higher premiums for lower deductibles. In short, the fee is proportional to the risk.

This has been interesting and valuable. I've learned much to my benefit from what has been brought to the table - from both the text of the thread and from "reading between the lines." However, I'll bow out here since others seem inclined to yield the field. When the game is no longer worth the candle, it's time to move on to different topics and new pursuits. Adios, amigos! Perhaps we'll reengage ideas another day.

Bain, I guess I'm to be held to a double standard. Because the writer of an earlier post said that he didn't understand or wasn't familiar with some of the terms/phrases I used, I respectfully defined terms where I thought it might help in my last post. Now, I'm labeled as "patronizing." I thought we were doing a pretty good job of refraining from ad hominem argument. Apparently, I was mistaken.

It's gratifying to see the discussion this has created and that, for the most part, we all respectfully refrain from engaging in ad hominem (attacking the person rather than the idea) argument or debate. At the risk of being accused of repeating myself, I'll say, again, that I agree with everyone who believes that we must speak and write in a manner that our clients understand. However, the appropriate use and placement of technical written language and "legalese" and the use of simple, clear, and succinct language including a degree of "vernacular" where it's effective, aren't mutually exclusive concepts. The home inspection profession, like practically every other profession, has its own language with its own specialized vocabulary. Practically speaking, the jargon of our profession is a two-edged sword. It's a useful and convenient shorthand for inspectors when speaking with each other. On the other hand, it confuses and excludes people who aren't familiar with it and don't understand it. That's why, when inspectors talk with each other, terms like overcurrent protection device, barge rafter, lift station, and evaporator coil can be tossed around with ease because they're understood by other inspectors. But these and similar terms can impede our communication if we use them when speaking with clients This isn't to suggest that instead of overcurrent device we say "electrical doohickey that turns off the juice in the main box." No, we say circuit breaker or fuse depending on which is appropriate. When it's necessary to use a term that clients may not understand, if we're attentive, we immediately explain the term before they have a chance to look or feel foolish because they don't know what it means. We respectfully educate as we inspect. What we do or don't communicate verbally during an inspection isn't what we will be held to in arbitration or litigation. In any litigation or dispute resolution, we will be held to our contract and to what we have or have not written in the inspection report. LAWSUITS ARE WON ON FACTS. It's difficult to litigate against facts and quantifiable data and information. Subjective statements, editorializing, vagueness, “waffle/weaselâ€

I couldn't agree with you more with regard to keeping things simple for clients. The term ADVERSE CONDITON is a term that stays in the glossary as a defined term because it's part of the definitions of other terms. As I pointed out previously, the primary function of the glossary is to act as the unseen framework upon which the report is constructed. The place to find out that your client's definition of a term or concept is not the same as your own is not in a courtroom or in arbitration. A glossary establishes specific and concrete operational definitons for what it is that you do. When speaking with clients about various issues pertaining to the systems and components that you inspect, the term "condition" is all that's necessary. I have always preferred and used "condition" in discussions with clients and agents rather than "problem, deficiency, or defect." Repeated use of any of these other terms in the course of an inspection creates a perception on the part of the client that the home is a "problem" home, a "deficient" home, or a "defective" home and this is, typically, not what an inspector intends to communicate at all. An inspector should exercise care to avoid using language that "makes clients' decisions for them" and use language that clearly and succinctly explains the various conditions noted in the inspection and provides sufficient perspective to permit clients to make their own informed decisions regarding the information provided during the inspection and in the report. Any of us is happy when a decision that someone else makes for us turns out to work out in our favor but, if it doesn't, we often tend to blame them for leading us astray. A inspector's "hat" should read "PROFESSIOAL HOME INSPECTOR" not HERO, CODE COMPLIANCE ENFORCEMENT, or OMNICIENT. With the exception of immediate and egregious life/safety conditions for which we have an ethical duty to see that the appropriate parties are made aware (such as combustion by-product spillage or backdrafting, fuel gas leakage, electrical conditions which have the potential to immediately result in a fire or electrocution, active plumbing leaks [the mountain property with eight inches of raw sewage in the crawl space from a disconnected main buiding sewer line], severely rotted/damaged/unstable decks, etc.), I've always viewed professional inspectors as disinterested third parties with regard to whether or not most typical conditions we find in the course of an inspection. I prefer an open, honest, professional relationship with my clients as opposed to a paternalistic/protective one. I think that's true for all of us. We're competent, highly trained and experienced reporters. As such, we should never lose sight of the fact that, while we are often the only parties who enter a home solely on behalf of our clients, our function and duty is to provide our clients with as much accurate, pertinent, and useful information as possible within the scope of our contract and standards. If we do this competently, with candor, clarity, humor, and professionalism, we've fulfilled both the letter and the spirit of our contract and the relationship that it creates with our clients. We assiduously avoid answering questions from clients such as "What should I ask the seller to fix?" or "Do you think I should buy this house? Would you buy this house?" because we're neither participants in nor parties to their contracts with third parties - sellers, agents, etc. If I do my job, my clients have all the information necessary, along with an accurate and realistic perspective, to discuss the results of the inspection with their representatives (agents or attorneys) and to proceed to the next step in the process of the transaction.

Chad, I think you misunderstood. I didn't say anything about being "sued for editorializing." I said that a glossary will reduce the potential for an inspector to editorialize in the written report. When inspectors engage in hyperbole and/or editorializing in speaking or writing, they not only risk confusion on the part of the client with regard to the relative importance of the condition being discussed, they also risk impeding the client's ability to make an informed decision with regard to the condition. Telling a client that "multiple tapping of a circuit breaker can lead to burning the house down and killing the occupants" is far different from telling a client that "multiple tapping is a common and typically inexpensive electrical system condition which should be addressed as soon as possible (IMMEDIATE ATTENTION) since it increases the potential for overheating of the connection." The first is hyperbole; the second is objective information put into perspective. Whether it's a missing switch cover or receptacle outlet cover plate or a melted circuit breaker, electrical conditions warrant a recommendation of IMMEDIATE ATTENTION rather than NORMAL MAINTENANCE. As we all know, it's the increased potential for damage and/or injury, not the relative cost-to-cure, that matters.

As for making anyone's "eyes hurt," better your eyes than your wallet.

A follow-up thought to my last post - the standards of practice to which I referred in my post are full of so-called "inspectorspeak" or "legalise." Fortunate or otherwise, it's a necessary reality. What is unfortunate is that these standards are so poorly written. Were they written at the level of other professional standards such as those which apply to the engineering, legal, or other professions, the need for a comprehensive inspection report glossary would be significantly reduced. I try to deal in what is, not in what should be. In twenty-four years as a professional inspector, professional instructor, expert witness, and consultant I've never had clients, real estate professionals, other inspectors, students, attorneys, or anyone else tell me that they couldn't understand me. The report glossary is part of the scaffolding, that underpins and supports the report. Most of the terms in the glossary are never read. However, in the event that an inspector finds himself or herself looking down the barrel of a lawsuit, far more important than "defensive report writing" is having an inspection report that will stand on its own merits and defend itself. A comprehensive inspection report glossary is essential in this regard. Your contract both defines and limits what you will and will not do. The inspection is a process which involve doing what your contract states you will do and not doing what your contract states you will not do. The inspection report documents that you did what your contract stated you would do and did not do what your contract stated you would not. When all three, the contract, the inspection, and the report, are congruent, you "keep the circle closed" and it significantly reduces the potential for contention and litigation. All of us want to do the absolutely best job we can for our clients but we don't want to lie awake at night worrying about being held liable for determining conditions beyond the scope of our work. Our documents - the contract and the report - and our attention to our work provide our best insuranced against such a possibility.

Fellas, I'd agree with you regarding "Inspectorspeak" if all of the language in the definitions continually reappeared throughout a report. No client (or any other reader) would understand it. However, this isn't the case. One benefit of having clearly defined terms in an inspection report glossary is that the definitions only have to appear in one place in the report - in the glossary. Other benefits of including an inspection report glossary which defines specific terms used in the report and applying those terms appropriately in the report are that: It creates a closed document. Controlling and defining the terms used in the inspection report not only keeps the report internally consistent, it also keeps it consistent with the inspection contract. It reduces the time required to prepare the report by reducing the amount of written information necessary to include in the report. It reduces the temptation to editorialize. It reduces legal exposure. It reduces the potential for misunderstanding on the part of both clients and others who may read the report. For example, if an inspection report glossary defines the term IMMEDIATE ATTENTION as: "When any condition is so designated, it shall mean that it is recommended that such condition be evaluated and addressed by an appropriate and QUALIFIED individual or company as soon as possible for any necessary modifications or corrective measures. If, in the course of evaluating and addressing the condition, it is determined that there are other conditions which require modifications or corrective measures, it is recommended that such modifications or corrective measures also be performed at that time." then, after describing a given ADVERSE CONDITION, the recommendation in the report regarding that condition is "IMMEDIATE ATTENTION." It's not necessary to write anything else. For instance, if the vent connector for a gas-fired water heater is not secured to the water heater draft hood, the report can state: "The vent connector portion of the water heater flue is not secured to the water heater draft hood - IMMEDIATE ATTENTION." Remember, an inspector's job is to find ADVERSE CONDITIONS, describe them, and to recommend a course of action to address them - not to determine the cause of an ADVERSE CONDITION or to design any specific corrective action. Directing the client's attention to the presence of an inspection report glossary in the report and discussing its purpose allows the client to use the glossary and to understand the report. Many of the glossary terms only refer to other defined terms in the glossary. While the client needs to know the gist and importance of terms such as IMMEDIATE ATTENTION, NORMAL MAINTENANCE, MONITOR, and INSPECTED, explaining these terms doesn't require a verbatim recitation of their definitions. Rather, it requires simply letting the client know that when an ADVERSE CONDITION is designated as IMMEDIATE ATTENTION, it is a recommendation that it be addressed as soon as possible. Whereas, when an ADVERSE CONDITION is designated as NORMAL MAINTENANCE, it is a recommendation that it be addressed as part of normal and regular ongoing home maintenance. INSPECTED simply indicates that a component so designated has been inspected and that no ADVERSE CONDITIONS were found. It's a simple, direct term that replaces terms which may be misinterpreted by clients such as "acceptable, functional, or satisfactory." Every single professional home inspection standard of practice (ASHI, NAHI, NACHI, CREIA, State of Arizona SOPs, etc.), while written with the best intent, is plagued by poor syntax, misspellings, poor sentence structure, internal contradictions and ambiguities, and other significant problems. Therefore, it becomes imperative for home inspectors to make their reports as tight as possible. In addition, report formats must be user-friendly for the inspector as well as for all of the potential readers, i.e., the client, the seller, the agents, and any contractors who use the report to find and address ADVERSE CONDITIONS.

Chris, You're spot-on in identifying the vinyl trim installation on the vinyl exterior wall cladding as an ADVERSE CONDITION. You're also to be commended for posting your questions and your excellent photographs. Jim appropriately addressed your questions. I'm going to make an observation on the comment you posted in response to Jim's reply: "I wrote it up for correction but I didn't have any simple ideas to suggest for corrective action for this particular joint between a wall and eave." If you meant that you had no verbal comments regarding ideas for the specific corrective action(s), good for you for asking your fellow inspectors. It's always useful to be able to verbally explain the actual or probable corrective action(s) to address an ADVERSE CONDITION. It helps your client better understand the degree of complexity and possible potential cost (in broad terms of whether it is relatively simple and inexpensive or complex and expensive, assuming that no other previously undetectable ADVERSE CONDITIONS are discovered in the course of performing the corrective actions). However, if you meant that you had no written comments for inclusion in the inspection report regarding the specific corrective action(s), that's an altogether different issue. Upon determining that an ADVERSE CONDITION is present, the job of a professional home inspector is to identify the specific component(s) affected, to describe the ADVERSE CONDITION clearly and succinctly (without editorializing or hyperbole), and, finally, to recommend an action to address the ADVERSE CONDITION (not to describe the specific method or materials of repair). The recommended action may take the form of a statement to the effect that "It is recommended that such ADVERSE CONDITION be evaluated and addressed by an appropriate and QUALIFIED individual or company as soon as possible for any necessary modifications or corrective measures. If, in the course of evaluating and addressing the ADVERSE CONDITION, it is determined that there are other ADVERSE CONDITIONS which require modifications or corrective measures, it is recommended that such modifications or corrective measures also be performed at that time." The terms "ADVERSE CONDITION" and "QUALIFIED" are in bold caps because they are part of a comprehensive inspection report glossary in which they are defined as follows: ADVERSE CONDITION: With regard to a specified system or component, a condition which is producing a detrimental effect on that system or component, which is impairing the NORMALLY INTENDED FUNCTION OR OPERATION of the specified system or component at the time of the inspection, or which in not consistent with good and established practice with regard to installation, assembly, operability, maintenance, or suitability of use. QUALIFIED: When referring to any individual or company performing additional evaluation or work on any systems or components at the subject property, QUALIFIED shall mean having the training, skills, expertise, and experience necessary to competently perform the referenced work and, where required, holding all applicable licenses, and meeting all applicable governmental requirements. NOTE: All repairs, corrective measures, or new work undertaken on any component or system should be performed only by QUALIFIED individuals or companies. Only new or appropriate materials should be used. All work should be performed in a workmanlike manner and in accordance with all appropriate and applicable industry standards and governmental requirements pertaining to permits, codes, ordinances, and regulations. Subsequent to completion, all such work should be documented by work orders, invoices, or receipts from the individuals or companies that have performed the work. (Company nameid="blue">) will not re-inspect any property which it has previously inspected to verify that the conditions documented during the inspection have been properly corrected. All systems and components require ongoing and prudent periodic maintenance to obtain their maximum service lives. When work requiring a permit is performed without obtaining the proper permit and inspections, that work may be considered nonconforming and illegal. Nonconforming work may jeopardize the safety of persons occupying or entering the property. It may also adversely affect specific insurance coverage and the salability of the property and may result in added costs in the form of additional fees and/or property tax penalties. Subsequent to completion and where appropriate and applicable, it is recommended that all such work be documented by work orders, invoices, or receipts from the individuals or companies which performed the work as well as by copies of all signed off building permits and lien releases from contractors and their employees, other workers, and material suppliers. In the definition of ADVERSE CONDITION the term NORMALLY INTENDED FUNCTION OR OPERATION is also in bold caps and is defined as: NORMALLY INTENDED FUNCTION OR OPERATION: With regard to a specified system or component, the historically and conventionally accepted purpose or use of that system or component and/or the intended purpose or use for which that system or component is designed by the manufacturer. If you'd like more information regarding the benefits of incorporating and using an inspection report glossary with your reports, email me at: prospex@prospex.us. Kevin

If you want a top-notch guide to the inspection of residential decks, go to www.nadra.org This is the website for the North American Deck and Railing Association. Their well-written and illustrated "Manual for the Inspection of Residential Wood Decks and Balconies" is an essential guide for professional home inspectors. Go to their website and click on “Articles, News and Infoâ€

Your Client/Customer is the individual whose name appears on the inspection contract. If another individual is going to sign the contract on behalf of the Client/Customer, you may wish to consider using an “Authorization to Sign the Home Inspection Contract on Behalf of the Customerâ€

Just an addendum to my recent post. If any of you would like more information to help you understand bonding and grounding as well as the reason that, with few exceptions, equipment grounding conductors and grounded (neutral) conductors must be kept separated and the grounded (neutral) conductors "floated" in any enclosure other than the enclosure containing the main service disconnection device, contact me at prospex@prospex.us and I'll send you an illustrated article on these topics. Kevin

Jim, Thanks for catching my typo error. You're correct when you indicate that it's "or" not "and." I'll proof my posts with greater care in the future. With regard to the "fully functional" GFCI receptacle installed in a two-wire system - as I tried to clarify for Brandon, in the situation described with the inspector creating the path to ground for fault current, in this secnario the GFCI will typically trip when the cube tester button is pushed precisely because, when it tries to induce a hot-to-equipment grounding conductor fault on the non-existent equipment grounding conductor, the inspector will serve as the path to ground through his contact with the metal exterior receptacle cover and his knee on the concrete. He will experience a very slight shock. However, if the GFCI device is a n older type and its internal GFCI function has failed, the receptacle will still be live and there will be no GFCI protection for the inspector. He may as well kneel on the concrete and directly touch the hot conductor. I'm pleased to see that this has generated a broad discussion. As for any inspector disconnecting the white pigtail of a GFCI circuit breaker to test for grounded conductor (neutral) continuity, NEVER ON AN INSPECTION and at home only if you're thoroughly versed in electrical work.

Brandon, Thanks for your question. Your confusion is understandable and useful. If someone doesn't understand what I say, it's my responsibility to look at what I write or say and to clarify my explanation. Remember, in the situation I described, a GFCI receptacle is installed in an older two-wire system where no equipment grounding conductor is present. I didn't say that the GFCI device wouldn't trip when current passed through the inspector's knee where it contacted the concrete (we know that current doesn't just take the path of least resistance to ground, it takes all available paths to ground). I said that the inspector would get a shock (slight though it might be). Now, consider this same scenario but with a failed GFCI device. Unlike the new requirements for GFCI devices which specify that such devices not allow any current to pass if their internal transformers fail, the ground-fault protection function of older GFCI devices can and does fail while still allowing the receptacle to remain live. If this were the case in the situation I described, the inspector would, at the minimum, experience a 120V shock and, at the worst, be electrocuted. The point was to remind inspectors that understanding the function and limitations of their testing equipment as well as the potential hazards with respect to older GFCI devices installed in two-wire systems is important. Thanks, again, for your input. I hope this helps. All of us benefit when we ask questions and share our knowledge and experience.

The following information may be of some help in formulating report language with regard to FPE and ZINSCO panelboards. The term "ADEVRSE CONDITION(S) "is in bold caps because it is a glossary term from a comprehensive Pid="size4">ROSid="size4">PEX inspection report glossary. THIS WRITTEN WORK PRODUCT CONTAINS SUGGESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION BY Pid="size4">ROSid="size4">PEX SUBSCRIBERS AND IS NOT INTENDED AS OR REPRESENTED AS LEGAL ADVICE OR LEGAL OPINION OF ANY KIND WHATSOEVER NOR IS IT TO BE CONSIDERED OR CONSTRUED AS SUCH. Federal Pacific Electric (FPE) and Zinsco Electrical Equipment Professional home inspectors are not required to address issues pertaining to product safety testing or product recalls. However, over the course of the development of the home inspection profession knowledge regarding certain products and the potential for specific failure issues relevant to those products has become what many inspectors consider to be “common knowledgeâ€