TOPIC: Interesting Inspection Legal Case

That's just it, the limiting to cost of inspection never gets used but here it did and succeeded (which creates precedence). The limitation from the state was longer than 2 years but the contract limited it to 2. So this case went like Mike mentioned, per contract.

Nice post Dom.  Though it makes one wonder; did the plaintiffs file this on their own or have their own attorney?  Sure seems like they missed several steps in the original trial/hearing of this.  All the more reason to have your bases covered.

I noticed as I read the decision, that the judges decided that two parties entering a contract have the ability to negotiate the terms. Thus, the plaintiffs had the ability to strike those provisions from the contract and/or negotiate them with their inspector. Also, Illinois does not require insurance nor has the legislature laid out any laws about the remedy for an error or omission, thus leaving this to the negotiated contract. Every contract is negotiated, either they sign and accept, or they actively try to change the terms before signing. It is nice to know that a contract still has some merit in this country, at least in this state.

They also have the right to say they did not understand what they were signing.
Good idea to send them a copy before springing it on them at the site.

They also have the right to say they did not understand what they were signing.
Good idea to send them a copy before springing it on them at the site.

Read the desicion Bob. The judges actually said they did not have that right once they signed the contract.

In Illinois you must understand what you are signing.