I Would Say Bock And Clark Is Obligated To Hire A Surveyor
At one time, I had a repeat client that was buying mobile home and RV parks all over CA & NV, both of which I am licensed in (grammar police). One day they called up and said they needed an ALTA in Tucson, AZ. I said, sorry I'm not licensed in AZ. They said, I don't care, get it done. Turned out one of my employees used to work with a guy that's licensed in AZ and he agreed to review our work and sign off on the ALTA. Was that bad?
I Would Say Bock And Clark Is Obligated To Hire A Surveyor
Depends on his level of review. I'm sure that he did the right thing.
Mr. Gardner
At one time, I had a repeat client that was buying mobile home and RV parks all over CA & NV, both of which I am licensed in (grammar police).
It is pleasing to note that you understood your violation was, in fact, a violation. Excellent perception, Sir. The simplest approach would have been to make the ending clause into a separate, simple sentence: I am licensed in both of those states.
I Would Say Bock And Clark Is Obligated To Hire A Surveyor
No...not at all.
I Would Say Bock And Clark Is Obligated To Hire A Surveyor
> No...not at all.
Why?
I am in agreement with Tommy but this is one of those scenarios where you can be caught with your pants down.
I Would Say Bock And Clark Is Obligated To Hire A Surveyor
> No...not at all.
Yes, they are. They did not do their due diligence. However, Mr. Lost his License is also obligated for a large chunk of the cost.
Of course with everyone else after him, I would be surprised if B&C was able to collect any of the amount they should be due.
I Would Say Bock And Clark Is Obligated To Hire A Surveyor
I'm not refering to the original post I was responding to Mr. Gardners post...follow the arrows:-P
I Would Say Bock And Clark Is Obligated To Hire A Surveyor
Because they entered into a contract for him to review his work, then the other surveyor would sign off on it.
In the original post the 'signing surveyor' had no CLUE what was happening!