Vendor agreements with "hold harmless"

[Jonsey]

How about the things they already know.... that you don't.

Webbed.

That's why..........they be calling it a "port" .....................

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CzCxOAtiAtg&feature=related

 

[Carnivore]

Webb

Good points.

I wonder if we are speaking out about this to the wrong people. FNC could give a rats A_s about me or you, except if we are late paying the freight.

Speaking of freight, is this not what we are speaking about anyway. They are a freight carrier. They are damaging our products on the way to the customer. The customer des not know the freight is damaged because the "rules sets" checking process says its ok.

Maybe we should organize and speak our concerns to OUR CLIENTS! Screw FNC, they are not essential in other words, They can and should be relaced for a better one.

Seriously, we need as a group say something to one client, then another and another. The client and the appraisers are using a faulty delivery system.
FNC is interfering with OUR commerce.

We could suggest an alternative method or delivery system.

Any suggestions?

 

[Atlanta CG]

Heard from TSI yesterday. She said they have contacted appraisers in 31 states and only a handfull of appraisers are refusing to sign it and except for those everyone is agreeing to the new fees which go back to the early 1990's.

 

[DWiley]

Let's see, E/O says--don't sign it, we won't bail you out.

That's right - if you get into a dispute with FNC they won't "bail you out." That is true whether or not you agree to the terms of use. They will, however, still cover errors and omissions.

By the way, it seems that many think this language is something new. It is not. If you have been using AppraisalPort you have already agreed to indemnification. The current terms of use, not the new one, the current one, says:

SUBSCRIBER shall indemnify AppraisalPort and its suppliers (whether of Information or otherwise), defend and hold them harmless from and with respect to any liability, damages (including without limitation any consequential, incidental, general, special or exemplary damages), losses, or claims which may arise, whether now or in the future, with regard to

• the use of AppraisalPort or any aspect or service thereof, or
• the accuracy, authenticity, or completeness of the Information, or
• any aspect of the operation of SUBSCRIBER's business in relationship with or in connection with AppraisalPort or SUBSCRIBER's use of the Information or software, whether any such liability, damages, loss, or claim arises from any act or omission of AppraisalPort (including its sole ordinary or gross negligence) or act or omission of any supplier of data to AppraisalPort (including their sole ordinary or gross negligence).

I guess some have not been reading the things they have agreed to. Reminds me a little of the certification pages on the URAR that so many sign without reading.

 

[Pamela Crowley (Florida)]

One thing is sure to me:

Only the dumbest appraisers will sign any of these vendor agreements with these hold harmless clauses.

as I have been posting here for many years now.

 

[Workbox]

The last agreement did not have the arbitration clause, they added it back again. So if you want to sue or in a class action, you have to go to arbitration. I wonder if that applies to the banks also? Plus, they changed "subscriber" to "User". Is the lender also the "User"?

Danny, is this what you meant in the other thread that you were looking forward in seeing us squirm, but kept it quite?

 

[Workbox]

Some very good comments made by General Counsel, Peter Christensen for LIA.
http://appraisalnewsonline.typepad.com/appraisal_news_for_real_e/2008/08/the-end-is-just.html

 

[TJSum]

Some very good comments made by General Counsel, Peter Christensen for LIA.
http://appraisalnewsonline.typepad.com/appraisal_news_for_real_e/2008/08/the-end-is-just.html

This is an excellent article, everyone should take note...

 

[George Ellerman]

Heard from TSI yesterday. She said they have contacted appraisers in 31 states and only a handfull of appraisers are refusing to sign it and except for those everyone is agreeing to the new fees which go back to the early 1990's.

That's what they're telling you.

 

[DWiley]

The last agreement did not have the arbitration clause, they added it back again. So if you want to sue or in a class action, you have to go to arbitration. I wonder if that applies to the banks also? Plus, they changed "subscriber" to "User". Is the lender also the "User"?

I think the original AP agreement included the arbitration clause. It was removed for a while. The new agreement is re-inserting something that was there before.

As for USERS, the agreement says:

USER refers to the person or entity that is identified to AppraisalPort as the user of one or more of AppraisalPort's products and services. These products and services may be identified by one or more enrollment forms for the product or service or by other written means (including, for example, electronic means such as e-mail, on-line or Internet subscription). You are also a USER if you use any of AppraisalPort's products and services through your association with or by working under the account of another USER.
​

Danny, is this what you meant in the other thread that you were looking forward in seeing us squirm, but kept it quite?

No, it's not what I meant at all.