why do they want both homeowners there when coming to give an estimiate?

[OBXbound]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:While the rationale for it is so that they can close the deal, I will say that having worked in this space, having both of the homeowners there is preferable. You'd be surprised how much variability it introduces if there are different opinions about options.

That’s fine, but that’s the couples issue…. If they know their dynamic, and that they usually or may disagree, and they decide to have one there for the estimate. But a company To “require” both spouses is absurd.

Again...like I stated before...the organizations that require it do so that they can close the deal in the house.

If, however, you think that this doesn't introduce a degree of variability into the project scope when both aren't there and talking about options and decisions, you haven't worked in this space. It absolutely does and I can see where a company would want to request that so as to mitigate that potential.

I have personally observed where a project was completed and a spouse claimed that it wasn't done "correctly" and was unhappy with the contracted result, albeit exactly reflective of the signed agreement. Does it happen much, no. But enough to where a company would want to avoid it in the future.

The idea that it's discriminatory is false. The companies that require it aren't doing it because they are "Anti-Women". They are doing it for legal reasons so that they can close the deal in the house and overcome objections. Please stop attempting to make this about "discrimination". That is complete bunk.

Are you.... claiming to speak...... for an entire industry?

LOL.

I can assure you, she speaks for pretty much the whole in-home sales industry. As a women, if you're prepared to sign a contract with a deposit payment for many thousands of dollars on the spot without your husband's input, that's great. Indeed it happens but it's rare. It's just as rare for a husband to sign without his wife there. If not, why are you intimidated by the notion that someone who does this for a living would want both of you there to discuss your project?

Why don't you understand that hard working professionals with kids don't have time for both people to talk about your project? The homeowners are the customers - it's their choice of they both want to be there. The sales person doesn't get to dictate that. More importantly, people are going to take time to make the decision, regardless of both people being there. At the end of the day, it's rude and disrespectful for you to demand that both homeowners be present.

Is the contractor's time any less valuable than yours? Being away from his or her family is less important than you being able to arrange a bit of time where you can intelligently discuss your project with both homeowners? You think that the contractor that drives in DMV traffic just loves to run around and come back to a home three times to get a project scoped because the client couldn't set aside some time to talk about their needs and requests?

Ultimately the salesperson or organization does get to dictate that precondition exactly as the perspective customer can dictate their willingness to engage with said contractor. Free choice is a great thing isn't it.

It's only "rude and disrespectful" if you are a consummate victim mentality. For the reasons mentioned previously, both legal and project accuracy, there is a defensible rationale to have both homeowners present. Despite the fact that you perceive wounding and being slighted at every turn, there are valid reasons to have both homeowners present. And if they can't allocate 45 minutes to review this project with a prospective contractor, how serious a consumer were they really?

The kitchen remodel folks, in many cases, charge for renderings and ultimately a quote. I think that makes better sense and certainly places value on everyone's time.

[OBXbound]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:While the rationale for it is so that they can close the deal, I will say that having worked in this space, having both of the homeowners there is preferable. You'd be surprised how much variability it introduces if there are different opinions about options.

That’s fine, but that’s the couples issue…. If they know their dynamic, and that they usually or may disagree, and they decide to have one there for the estimate. But a company To “require” both spouses is absurd.

Again...like I stated before...the organizations that require it do so that they can close the deal in the house.

If, however, you think that this doesn't introduce a degree of variability into the project scope when both aren't there and talking about options and decisions, you haven't worked in this space. It absolutely does and I can see where a company would want to request that so as to mitigate that potential.

I have personally observed where a project was completed and a spouse claimed that it wasn't done "correctly" and was unhappy with the contracted result, albeit exactly reflective of the signed agreement. Does it happen much, no. But enough to where a company would want to avoid it in the future.

The idea that it's discriminatory is false. The companies that require it aren't doing it because they are "Anti-Women". They are doing it for legal reasons so that they can close the deal in the house and overcome objections. Please stop attempting to make this about "discrimination". That is complete bunk.

Are you.... claiming to speak...... for an entire industry?

LOL.

I can assure you, she speaks for pretty much the whole in-home sales industry. As a women, if you're prepared to sign a contract with a deposit payment for many thousands of dollars on the spot without your husband's input, that's great. Indeed it happens but it's rare. It's just as rare for a husband to sign without his wife there. If not, why are you intimidated by the notion that someone who does this for a living would want both of you there to discuss your project?

You should not be going into the presentation with an expectation that you get a contract signed on the spot.

Sure. Why would a contractor want to go to a home, spend 3 or so hours of his/her time with travel, to not pick up a contract. I am guessing you are a great tipper.

[Anonymous]

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:While the rationale for it is so that they can close the deal, I will say that having worked in this space, having both of the homeowners there is preferable. You'd be surprised how much variability it introduces if there are different opinions about options.

That’s fine, but that’s the couples issue…. If they know their dynamic, and that they usually or may disagree, and they decide to have one there for the estimate. But a company To “require” both spouses is absurd.

Again...like I stated before...the organizations that require it do so that they can close the deal in the house.

If, however, you think that this doesn't introduce a degree of variability into the project scope when both aren't there and talking about options and decisions, you haven't worked in this space. It absolutely does and I can see where a company would want to request that so as to mitigate that potential.

I have personally observed where a project was completed and a spouse claimed that it wasn't done "correctly" and was unhappy with the contracted result, albeit exactly reflective of the signed agreement. Does it happen much, no. But enough to where a company would want to avoid it in the future.

The idea that it's discriminatory is false. The companies that require it aren't doing it because they are "Anti-Women". They are doing it for legal reasons so that they can close the deal in the house and overcome objections. Please stop attempting to make this about "discrimination". That is complete bunk.

Are you.... claiming to speak...... for an entire industry?

LOL.

I can assure you, she speaks for pretty much the whole in-home sales industry. As a women, if you're prepared to sign a contract with a deposit payment for many thousands of dollars on the spot without your husband's input, that's great. Indeed it happens but it's rare. It's just as rare for a husband to sign without his wife there. If not, why are you intimidated by the notion that someone who does this for a living would want both of you there to discuss your project?

You should not be going into the presentation with an expectation that you get a contract signed on the spot.

Sure. Why would a contractor want to go to a home, spend 3 or so hours of his/her time with travel, to not pick up a contract. I am guessing you are a great tipper.

Because that's the business model you chose. You could have opened a retail store and had people come to you instead, but you opted for in-home sales.

You know perfectly well your close rate is not 100%, regardless of how many homeowners are present at the time of visit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:While the rationale for it is so that they can close the deal, I will say that having worked in this space, having both of the homeowners there is preferable. You'd be surprised how much variability it introduces if there are different opinions about options.

That’s fine, but that’s the couples issue…. If they know their dynamic, and that they usually or may disagree, and they decide to have one there for the estimate. But a company To “require” both spouses is absurd.

Again...like I stated before...the organizations that require it do so that they can close the deal in the house.

If, however, you think that this doesn't introduce a degree of variability into the project scope when both aren't there and talking about options and decisions, you haven't worked in this space. It absolutely does and I can see where a company would want to request that so as to mitigate that potential.

I have personally observed where a project was completed and a spouse claimed that it wasn't done "correctly" and was unhappy with the contracted result, albeit exactly reflective of the signed agreement. Does it happen much, no. But enough to where a company would want to avoid it in the future.

The idea that it's discriminatory is false. The companies that require it aren't doing it because they are "Anti-Women". They are doing it for legal reasons so that they can close the deal in the house and overcome objections. Please stop attempting to make this about "discrimination". That is complete bunk.

Are you.... claiming to speak...... for an entire industry?

LOL.

I can assure you, she speaks for pretty much the whole in-home sales industry. As a women, if you're prepared to sign a contract with a deposit payment for many thousands of dollars on the spot without your husband's input, that's great. Indeed it happens but it's rare. It's just as rare for a husband to sign without his wife there. If not, why are you intimidated by the notion that someone who does this for a living would want both of you there to discuss your project?

You should not be going into the presentation with an expectation that you get a contract signed on the spot.

Sure. Why would a contractor want to go to a home, spend 3 or so hours of his/her time with travel, to not pick up a contract. I am guessing you are a great tipper.

Because that's the business model you chose. You could have opened a retail store and had people come to you instead, but you opted for in-home sales.

You know perfectly well your close rate is not 100%, regardless of how many homeowners are present at the time of visit.

+1 the high pressure sales thing is so off putting. Customers end up paying extra for the hours you demand of their time to hard sell them. You'd make more sales if you were more efficient with your own and other people's time and were able to provide more competitive quotes.

[Anonymous]

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:While the rationale for it is so that they can close the deal, I will say that having worked in this space, having both of the homeowners there is preferable. You'd be surprised how much variability it introduces if there are different opinions about options.

That’s fine, but that’s the couples issue…. If they know their dynamic, and that they usually or may disagree, and they decide to have one there for the estimate. But a company To “require” both spouses is absurd.

Again...like I stated before...the organizations that require it do so that they can close the deal in the house.

If, however, you think that this doesn't introduce a degree of variability into the project scope when both aren't there and talking about options and decisions, you haven't worked in this space. It absolutely does and I can see where a company would want to request that so as to mitigate that potential.

I have personally observed where a project was completed and a spouse claimed that it wasn't done "correctly" and was unhappy with the contracted result, albeit exactly reflective of the signed agreement. Does it happen much, no. But enough to where a company would want to avoid it in the future.

The idea that it's discriminatory is false. The companies that require it aren't doing it because they are "Anti-Women". They are doing it for legal reasons so that they can close the deal in the house and overcome objections. Please stop attempting to make this about "discrimination". That is complete bunk.

Are you.... claiming to speak...... for an entire industry?

LOL.

I can assure you, she speaks for pretty much the whole in-home sales industry. As a women, if you're prepared to sign a contract with a deposit payment for many thousands of dollars on the spot without your husband's input, that's great. Indeed it happens but it's rare. It's just as rare for a husband to sign without his wife there. If not, why are you intimidated by the notion that someone who does this for a living would want both of you there to discuss your project?

Why don't you understand that hard working professionals with kids don't have time for both people to talk about your project? The homeowners are the customers - it's their choice of they both want to be there. The sales person doesn't get to dictate that. More importantly, people are going to take time to make the decision, regardless of both people being there. At the end of the day, it's rude and disrespectful for you to demand that both homeowners be present.

Is the contractor's time any less valuable than yours? Being away from his or her family is less important than you being able to arrange a bit of time where you can intelligently discuss your project with both homeowners? You think that the contractor that drives in DMV traffic just loves to run around and come back to a home three times to get a project scoped because the client couldn't set aside some time to talk about their needs and requests?

Ultimately the salesperson or organization does get to dictate that precondition exactly as the perspective customer can dictate their willingness to engage with said contractor. Free choice is a great thing isn't it.

It's only "rude and disrespectful" if you are a consummate victim mentality. For the reasons mentioned previously, both legal and project accuracy, there is a defensible rationale to have both homeowners present. Despite the fact that you perceive wounding and being slighted at every turn, there are valid reasons to have both homeowners present. And if they can't allocate 45 minutes to review this project with a prospective contractor, how serious a consumer were they really?

The kitchen remodel folks, in many cases, charge for renderings and ultimately a quote. I think that makes better sense and certainly places value on everyone's time.

5 pages of people complaining about it and you have the nerve to continue pushing back. The only justification is as a high pressure sales tactic. Your claim about it being legally necessary is bullshit. The contract controls and that's the entire point of an integration clause.

[Anonymous]

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:While the rationale for it is so that they can close the deal, I will say that having worked in this space, having both of the homeowners there is preferable. You'd be surprised how much variability it introduces if there are different opinions about options.

That’s fine, but that’s the couples issue…. If they know their dynamic, and that they usually or may disagree, and they decide to have one there for the estimate. But a company To “require” both spouses is absurd.

Again...like I stated before...the organizations that require it do so that they can close the deal in the house.

If, however, you think that this doesn't introduce a degree of variability into the project scope when both aren't there and talking about options and decisions, you haven't worked in this space. It absolutely does and I can see where a company would want to request that so as to mitigate that potential.

I have personally observed where a project was completed and a spouse claimed that it wasn't done "correctly" and was unhappy with the contracted result, albeit exactly reflective of the signed agreement. Does it happen much, no. But enough to where a company would want to avoid it in the future.

The idea that it's discriminatory is false. The companies that require it aren't doing it because they are "Anti-Women". They are doing it for legal reasons so that they can close the deal in the house and overcome objections. Please stop attempting to make this about "discrimination". That is complete bunk.

Are you.... claiming to speak...... for an entire industry?

LOL.

I can assure you, she speaks for pretty much the whole in-home sales industry. As a women, if you're prepared to sign a contract with a deposit payment for many thousands of dollars on the spot without your husband's input, that's great. Indeed it happens but it's rare. It's just as rare for a husband to sign without his wife there. If not, why are you intimidated by the notion that someone who does this for a living would want both of you there to discuss your project?

You should not be going into the presentation with an expectation that you get a contract signed on the spot.

Sure. Why would a contractor want to go to a home, spend 3 or so hours of his/her time with travel, to not pick up a contract. I am guessing you are a great tipper.

This is a ridiculous mindset. I'm sorry that you consider it a waste of your time to come out and pitch your product to homeowners and not get a deal. But the fact is that many of us want to get bids from multiple contractors and compare what we are getting for what we are paying when we are spending that kind of money. And someone has to be first. You can't all be the last quote we get for a bid. So we call three vendors and schedule appointments. And we take the appointments you schedule. If you end up first, you have to deal with making your pitch and waiting for us to get the other pitches and quotes before you get your deal or not. The good vendors know that this is what buyers are doing and they are confident enough in their bids that they'll actually abide by their word, do the in-home pitch, leave when done, email the quote and rely on the fact that they offer the best deal with the best bang for the buck quote and will get the call back. Only those people who think they have to score the deal that evening and if they leave, they won't hear back, try to push the scam "discount if you sign tonight". If you don't want to waste your time, work for a company that offers better deals to their customers rather than those who try to scam customers into signing up on the spot.

I'm sorry, but if you don't want to deal with this, don't work in an industry that relies on in-home sales models. You chose the business and the business model.

[Anonymous]

High pressure sales tactic worst contractor quality and highest prices

[Anonymous]

Where did anyone defend a hard call close tactic?

I don't see anyone doing that. But the stark and rubelike understanding of the legal question is laughable here.

So many experts in here. Can't imagine having to deal with ever Karen homeowner who is just aching to be offended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:While the rationale for it is so that they can close the deal, I will say that having worked in this space, having both of the homeowners there is preferable. You'd be surprised how much variability it introduces if there are different opinions about options.

That’s fine, but that’s the couples issue…. If they know their dynamic, and that they usually or may disagree, and they decide to have one there for the estimate. But a company To “require” both spouses is absurd.

Again...like I stated before...the organizations that require it do so that they can close the deal in the house.

If, however, you think that this doesn't introduce a degree of variability into the project scope when both aren't there and talking about options and decisions, you haven't worked in this space. It absolutely does and I can see where a company would want to request that so as to mitigate that potential.

I have personally observed where a project was completed and a spouse claimed that it wasn't done "correctly" and was unhappy with the contracted result, albeit exactly reflective of the signed agreement. Does it happen much, no. But enough to where a company would want to avoid it in the future.

The idea that it's discriminatory is false. The companies that require it aren't doing it because they are "Anti-Women". They are doing it for legal reasons so that they can close the deal in the house and overcome objections. Please stop attempting to make this about "discrimination". That is complete bunk.

Are you.... claiming to speak...... for an entire industry?

LOL.

I can assure you, she speaks for pretty much the whole in-home sales industry. As a women, if you're prepared to sign a contract with a deposit payment for many thousands of dollars on the spot without your husband's input, that's great. Indeed it happens but it's rare. It's just as rare for a husband to sign without his wife there. If not, why are you intimidated by the notion that someone who does this for a living would want both of you there to discuss your project?

Why don't you understand that hard working professionals with kids don't have time for both people to talk about your project? The homeowners are the customers - it's their choice of they both want to be there. The sales person doesn't get to dictate that. More importantly, people are going to take time to make the decision, regardless of both people being there. At the end of the day, it's rude and disrespectful for you to demand that both homeowners be present.

Is the contractor's time any less valuable than yours? Being away from his or her family is less important than you being able to arrange a bit of time where you can intelligently discuss your project with both homeowners? You think that the contractor that drives in DMV traffic just loves to run around and come back to a home three times to get a project scoped because the client couldn't set aside some time to talk about their needs and requests?

Ultimately the salesperson or organization does get to dictate that precondition exactly as the perspective customer can dictate their willingness to engage with said contractor. Free choice is a great thing isn't it.

It's only "rude and disrespectful" if you are a consummate victim mentality. For the reasons mentioned previously, both legal and project accuracy, there is a defensible rationale to have both homeowners present. Despite the fact that you perceive wounding and being slighted at every turn, there are valid reasons to have both homeowners present. And if they can't allocate 45 minutes to review this project with a prospective contractor, how serious a consumer were they really?

The kitchen remodel folks, in many cases, charge for renderings and ultimately a quote. I think that makes better sense and certainly places value on everyone's time.

5 pages of people complaining about it and you have the nerve to continue pushing back. The only justification is as a high pressure sales tactic. Your claim about it being legally necessary is bullshit. The contract controls and that's the entire point of an integration clause.

Love it when someone jumps on Wikipedia for a $0.05 law degree. Guess the other party on the deed to the home would sign in "spirit".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:While the rationale for it is so that they can close the deal, I will say that having worked in this space, having both of the homeowners there is preferable. You'd be surprised how much variability it introduces if there are different opinions about options.

That’s fine, but that’s the couples issue…. If they know their dynamic, and that they usually or may disagree, and they decide to have one there for the estimate. But a company To “require” both spouses is absurd.

Again...like I stated before...the organizations that require it do so that they can close the deal in the house.

If, however, you think that this doesn't introduce a degree of variability into the project scope when both aren't there and talking about options and decisions, you haven't worked in this space. It absolutely does and I can see where a company would want to request that so as to mitigate that potential.

I have personally observed where a project was completed and a spouse claimed that it wasn't done "correctly" and was unhappy with the contracted result, albeit exactly reflective of the signed agreement. Does it happen much, no. But enough to where a company would want to avoid it in the future.

The idea that it's discriminatory is false. The companies that require it aren't doing it because they are "Anti-Women". They are doing it for legal reasons so that they can close the deal in the house and overcome objections. Please stop attempting to make this about "discrimination". That is complete bunk.

Are you.... claiming to speak...... for an entire industry?

LOL.

I can assure you, she speaks for pretty much the whole in-home sales industry. As a women, if you're prepared to sign a contract with a deposit payment for many thousands of dollars on the spot without your husband's input, that's great. Indeed it happens but it's rare. It's just as rare for a husband to sign without his wife there. If not, why are you intimidated by the notion that someone who does this for a living would want both of you there to discuss your project?

Why don't you understand that hard working professionals with kids don't have time for both people to talk about your project? The homeowners are the customers - it's their choice of they both want to be there. The sales person doesn't get to dictate that. More importantly, people are going to take time to make the decision, regardless of both people being there. At the end of the day, it's rude and disrespectful for you to demand that both homeowners be present.

Is the contractor's time any less valuable than yours? Being away from his or her family is less important than you being able to arrange a bit of time where you can intelligently discuss your project with both homeowners? You think that the contractor that drives in DMV traffic just loves to run around and come back to a home three times to get a project scoped because the client couldn't set aside some time to talk about their needs and requests?

Ultimately the salesperson or organization does get to dictate that precondition exactly as the perspective customer can dictate their willingness to engage with said contractor. Free choice is a great thing isn't it.

It's only "rude and disrespectful" if you are a consummate victim mentality. For the reasons mentioned previously, both legal and project accuracy, there is a defensible rationale to have both homeowners present. Despite the fact that you perceive wounding and being slighted at every turn, there are valid reasons to have both homeowners present. And if they can't allocate 45 minutes to review this project with a prospective contractor, how serious a consumer were they really?

The kitchen remodel folks, in many cases, charge for renderings and ultimately a quote. I think that makes better sense and certainly places value on everyone's time.

5 pages of people complaining about it and you have the nerve to continue pushing back. The only justification is as a high pressure sales tactic. Your claim about it being legally necessary is bullshit. The contract controls and that's the entire point of an integration clause.

Love it when someone jumps on Wikipedia for a $0.05 law degree. Guess the other party on the deed to the home would sign in "spirit".

PP who is a member of multiple bars. There's a huge difference between having both homeowners present for a sales pitch and having both owners sign the contract. Sorry that you didn't learn how to read the fact pattern at your law school. This is something you should have learned as a 1L.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:While the rationale for it is so that they can close the deal, I will say that having worked in this space, having both of the homeowners there is preferable. You'd be surprised how much variability it introduces if there are different opinions about options.

That’s fine, but that’s the couples issue…. If they know their dynamic, and that they usually or may disagree, and they decide to have one there for the estimate. But a company To “require” both spouses is absurd.

Again...like I stated before...the organizations that require it do so that they can close the deal in the house.

If, however, you think that this doesn't introduce a degree of variability into the project scope when both aren't there and talking about options and decisions, you haven't worked in this space. It absolutely does and I can see where a company would want to request that so as to mitigate that potential.

I have personally observed where a project was completed and a spouse claimed that it wasn't done "correctly" and was unhappy with the contracted result, albeit exactly reflective of the signed agreement. Does it happen much, no. But enough to where a company would want to avoid it in the future.

The idea that it's discriminatory is false. The companies that require it aren't doing it because they are "Anti-Women". They are doing it for legal reasons so that they can close the deal in the house and overcome objections. Please stop attempting to make this about "discrimination". That is complete bunk.

Are you.... claiming to speak...... for an entire industry?

LOL.

I can assure you, she speaks for pretty much the whole in-home sales industry. As a women, if you're prepared to sign a contract with a deposit payment for many thousands of dollars on the spot without your husband's input, that's great. Indeed it happens but it's rare. It's just as rare for a husband to sign without his wife there. If not, why are you intimidated by the notion that someone who does this for a living would want both of you there to discuss your project?

Why don't you understand that hard working professionals with kids don't have time for both people to talk about your project? The homeowners are the customers - it's their choice of they both want to be there. The sales person doesn't get to dictate that. More importantly, people are going to take time to make the decision, regardless of both people being there. At the end of the day, it's rude and disrespectful for you to demand that both homeowners be present.

Is the contractor's time any less valuable than yours? Being away from his or her family is less important than you being able to arrange a bit of time where you can intelligently discuss your project with both homeowners? You think that the contractor that drives in DMV traffic just loves to run around and come back to a home three times to get a project scoped because the client couldn't set aside some time to talk about their needs and requests?

Ultimately the salesperson or organization does get to dictate that precondition exactly as the perspective customer can dictate their willingness to engage with said contractor. Free choice is a great thing isn't it.

It's only "rude and disrespectful" if you are a consummate victim mentality. For the reasons mentioned previously, both legal and project accuracy, there is a defensible rationale to have both homeowners present. Despite the fact that you perceive wounding and being slighted at every turn, there are valid reasons to have both homeowners present. And if they can't allocate 45 minutes to review this project with a prospective contractor, how serious a consumer were they really?

The kitchen remodel folks, in many cases, charge for renderings and ultimately a quote. I think that makes better sense and certainly places value on everyone's time.

5 pages of people complaining about it and you have the nerve to continue pushing back. The only justification is as a high pressure sales tactic. Your claim about it being legally necessary is bullshit. The contract controls and that's the entire point of an integration clause.

Love it when someone jumps on Wikipedia for a $0.05 law degree. Guess the other party on the deed to the home would sign in "spirit".

how would you even know who's on what deed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:While the rationale for it is so that they can close the deal, I will say that having worked in this space, having both of the homeowners there is preferable. You'd be surprised how much variability it introduces if there are different opinions about options.

That’s fine, but that’s the couples issue…. If they know their dynamic, and that they usually or may disagree, and they decide to have one there for the estimate. But a company To “require” both spouses is absurd.

Again...like I stated before...the organizations that require it do so that they can close the deal in the house.

If, however, you think that this doesn't introduce a degree of variability into the project scope when both aren't there and talking about options and decisions, you haven't worked in this space. It absolutely does and I can see where a company would want to request that so as to mitigate that potential.

I have personally observed where a project was completed and a spouse claimed that it wasn't done "correctly" and was unhappy with the contracted result, albeit exactly reflective of the signed agreement. Does it happen much, no. But enough to where a company would want to avoid it in the future.

The idea that it's discriminatory is false. The companies that require it aren't doing it because they are "Anti-Women". They are doing it for legal reasons so that they can close the deal in the house and overcome objections. Please stop attempting to make this about "discrimination". That is complete bunk.

Are you.... claiming to speak...... for an entire industry?

LOL.

I can assure you, she speaks for pretty much the whole in-home sales industry. As a women, if you're prepared to sign a contract with a deposit payment for many thousands of dollars on the spot without your husband's input, that's great. Indeed it happens but it's rare. It's just as rare for a husband to sign without his wife there. If not, why are you intimidated by the notion that someone who does this for a living would want both of you there to discuss your project?

Why don't you understand that hard working professionals with kids don't have time for both people to talk about your project? The homeowners are the customers - it's their choice of they both want to be there. The sales person doesn't get to dictate that. More importantly, people are going to take time to make the decision, regardless of both people being there. At the end of the day, it's rude and disrespectful for you to demand that both homeowners be present.

Is the contractor's time any less valuable than yours? Being away from his or her family is less important than you being able to arrange a bit of time where you can intelligently discuss your project with both homeowners? You think that the contractor that drives in DMV traffic just loves to run around and come back to a home three times to get a project scoped because the client couldn't set aside some time to talk about their needs and requests?

Ultimately the salesperson or organization does get to dictate that precondition exactly as the perspective customer can dictate their willingness to engage with said contractor. Free choice is a great thing isn't it.

It's only "rude and disrespectful" if you are a consummate victim mentality. For the reasons mentioned previously, both legal and project accuracy, there is a defensible rationale to have both homeowners present. Despite the fact that you perceive wounding and being slighted at every turn, there are valid reasons to have both homeowners present. And if they can't allocate 45 minutes to review this project with a prospective contractor, how serious a consumer were they really?

The kitchen remodel folks, in many cases, charge for renderings and ultimately a quote. I think that makes better sense and certainly places value on everyone's time.

5 pages of people complaining about it and you have the nerve to continue pushing back. The only justification is as a high pressure sales tactic. Your claim about it being legally necessary is bullshit. The contract controls and that's the entire point of an integration clause.

Love it when someone jumps on Wikipedia for a $0.05 law degree. Guess the other party on the deed to the home would sign in "spirit".

PP who is a member of multiple bars. There's a huge difference between having both homeowners present for a sales pitch and having both owners sign the contract. Sorry that you didn't learn how to read the fact pattern at your law school. This is something you should have learned as a 1L.

Of course you are. I find you believable especially when you refute one person's recount who claims to be in the industry...but we should believe your account because of your claim of being an attorney. Of course. I love how that works.

I can't speak from experience, but I suspect the point of having both there is to discuss the project and ultimately get the paperwork signed. Getting a contract signed on a first meeting doesn't have to be "high pressure". Just signed a contract for my fence and while they didn't require us to both be there, it was nice to have feedback from both parties.

I guess I am just not so generally scared of being pressured or such a weak person in my own home that I am worried about it. Interesting that an attorney would be so worried about it. Especially with your "1L" code speak.

[Anonymous]

So many Yelp "Elites".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:While the rationale for it is so that they can close the deal, I will say that having worked in this space, having both of the homeowners there is preferable. You'd be surprised how much variability it introduces if there are different opinions about options.

That’s fine, but that’s the couples issue…. If they know their dynamic, and that they usually or may disagree, and they decide to have one there for the estimate. But a company To “require” both spouses is absurd.

Again...like I stated before...the organizations that require it do so that they can close the deal in the house.

If, however, you think that this doesn't introduce a degree of variability into the project scope when both aren't there and talking about options and decisions, you haven't worked in this space. It absolutely does and I can see where a company would want to request that so as to mitigate that potential.

I have personally observed where a project was completed and a spouse claimed that it wasn't done "correctly" and was unhappy with the contracted result, albeit exactly reflective of the signed agreement. Does it happen much, no. But enough to where a company would want to avoid it in the future.

The idea that it's discriminatory is false. The companies that require it aren't doing it because they are "Anti-Women". They are doing it for legal reasons so that they can close the deal in the house and overcome objections. Please stop attempting to make this about "discrimination". That is complete bunk.

Are you.... claiming to speak...... for an entire industry?

LOL.

I can assure you, she speaks for pretty much the whole in-home sales industry. As a women, if you're prepared to sign a contract with a deposit payment for many thousands of dollars on the spot without your husband's input, that's great. Indeed it happens but it's rare. It's just as rare for a husband to sign without his wife there. If not, why are you intimidated by the notion that someone who does this for a living would want both of you there to discuss your project?

You should not be going into the presentation with an expectation that you get a contract signed on the spot.

Sure. Why would a contractor want to go to a home, spend 3 or so hours of his/her time with travel, to not pick up a contract. I am guessing you are a great tipper.

This is a ridiculous mindset. I'm sorry that you consider it a waste of your time to come out and pitch your product to homeowners and not get a deal. But the fact is that many of us want to get bids from multiple contractors and compare what we are getting for what we are paying when we are spending that kind of money. And someone has to be first. You can't all be the last quote we get for a bid. So we call three vendors and schedule appointments. And we take the appointments you schedule. If you end up first, you have to deal with making your pitch and waiting for us to get the other pitches and quotes before you get your deal or not. The good vendors know that this is what buyers are doing and they are confident enough in their bids that they'll actually abide by their word, do the in-home pitch, leave when done, email the quote and rely on the fact that they offer the best deal with the best bang for the buck quote and will get the call back. Only those people who think they have to score the deal that evening and if they leave, they won't hear back, try to push the scam "discount if you sign tonight". If you don't want to waste your time, work for a company that offers better deals to their customers rather than those who try to scam customers into signing up on the spot.

I'm sorry, but if you don't want to deal with this, don't work in an industry that relies on in-home sales models. You chose the business and the business model.

+1If you knew you were offering a competitive bid, you wouldn't need to pressure people to sign right away

[Anonymous]

Uh oh.

Is it Thompson Creek? They are very predatory and pushy.

Beware.

They showed up at our house even after I said I was not hiring them and acted like it was a “mistake.” Creepy.

Look up the business with the better business bureau and court system and make sure you have done a thorough check.