Why should an inspection agreement identify the property precisely?

The inspection agreement defines the transaction between inspector and client, and the property identification is what fixes its subject. That matters most when something goes wrong afterward: a dispute about whether a condition was reported turns first on which building was inspected, and a vague identification — a street name without a unit number, a lot description in a new development, one address in a multi-building property — leaves that question open. Precise identification also settles scope questions that arise in practice: which of several detached structures on the parcel were included, which unit in a duplex, which of two buildings sharing an address. The agreement, the report and any subsequent claim all reference the same identification, so getting it right at the outset is what keeps them aligned. It is administrative work whose value is entirely in the dispute that may never come.

The agreement fixes what was inspected, so precise property identification is what establishes the subject of the inspection if the scope is later disputed.

The inspection agreement defines the parties, scope, limitations and the property inspected. Precise identification establishes the subject of the inspection and resolves later scope disputes, particularly where multiple structures or units exist.

Which Building Did You Inspect? A year later, the agreement is the only thing that answers that.

Where a parcel has detached structures, listing them by name in the agreement prevents the most common scope argument after closing.

• •Omitting unit numbers in multi-unit properties
• •Not stating which outbuildings were included or excluded
• •Relying on the report alone to define scope