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".

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

Anonymous wrote:

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 wrote:So many Yelp "Elites".

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.

OBXbound wrote:Hard to tell who says what here with all the unnamed posters...but speaking of personal attacks...didn't someone say that anyone that wanted both homeowners to be home was discriminating against women?

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound 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.

It absolutely is about discriminating against women. This is tied into the long standing belief that men make the decisions.

You spend 5 paragraphs going on about how this is to prevent misunderstandings. This is false. You prevent misunderstandings by having a detailed contract.

Why default to the clear and document legal explanation for something when you can just claim to be discriminated for something and marginalized. Woe is me.

https://www.proremodeler.com/contract-signatures-how-many-do-you-need

Once again...as a woman...I have been in the in home selling workforce and have had contracts signed by either the husband or the wife and the contracts were EXPLICIT and detailed. When the work was completed, the spouse that signed did not effectively communicate the project and the remaining and not present homeowner was disappointed with the completed project.

Is it the consultants job to follow up with the homeowner that wasn't present to make sure they reviewed the contract? Woudn't that be more "discrimination" in your opinion?

Goodness gracious...stop looking for "boogeymen" where there are none. The organization that I worked at was run almost entirely by women. Sales manager - woman. Office manager - woman. Person that wrote the contract drafts and sales procedures - woman.

I guess they were all misogynists as well.

Ah yes, women in sales can't discriminate against women. That's why you're in sales and not a lawyer.

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound 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.

It absolutely is about discriminating against women. This is tied into the long standing belief that men make the decisions.

You spend 5 paragraphs going on about how this is to prevent misunderstandings. This is false. You prevent misunderstandings by having a detailed contract.

Why default to the clear and document legal explanation for something when you can just claim to be discriminated for something and marginalized. Woe is me.

https://www.proremodeler.com/contract-signatures-how-many-do-you-need

Once again...as a woman...I have been in the in home selling workforce and have had contracts signed by either the husband or the wife and the contracts were EXPLICIT and detailed. When the work was completed, the spouse that signed did not effectively communicate the project and the remaining and not present homeowner was disappointed with the completed project.

Is it the consultants job to follow up with the homeowner that wasn't present to make sure they reviewed the contract? Woudn't that be more "discrimination" in your opinion?

Goodness gracious...stop looking for "boogeymen" where there are none. The organization that I worked at was run almost entirely by women. Sales manager - woman. Office manager - woman. Person that wrote the contract drafts and sales procedures - woman.

I guess they were all misogynists as well.

Ah yes, women in sales can't discriminate against women. That's why you're in sales and not a lawyer.

Here it was.

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound 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.

It absolutely is about discriminating against women. This is tied into the long standing belief that men make the decisions.

You spend 5 paragraphs going on about how this is to prevent misunderstandings. This is false. You prevent misunderstandings by having a detailed contract.

Why default to the clear and document legal explanation for something when you can just claim to be discriminated for something and marginalized. Woe is me.

https://www.proremodeler.com/contract-signatures-how-many-do-you-need

Once again...as a woman...I have been in the in home selling workforce and have had contracts signed by either the husband or the wife and the contracts were EXPLICIT and detailed. When the work was completed, the spouse that signed did not effectively communicate the project and the remaining and not present homeowner was disappointed with the completed project.

Is it the consultants job to follow up with the homeowner that wasn't present to make sure they reviewed the contract? Woudn't that be more "discrimination" in your opinion?

Goodness gracious...stop looking for "boogeymen" where there are none. The organization that I worked at was run almost entirely by women. Sales manager - woman. Office manager - woman. Person that wrote the contract drafts and sales procedures - woman.

I guess they were all misogynists as well.

Ah yes, women in sales can't discriminate against women. That's why you're in sales and not a lawyer.

Here it was.

What's your point? You really think women can't discriminate against women?

OBXbound wrote:I think this has mostly run it's course. You'll believe what you are convinced of regardless of actual information to the contrary. Goodness me...we are so tribal these days. Scary times ahead for us a people.

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:I think this has mostly run it's course. You'll believe what you are convinced of regardless of actual information to the contrary. Goodness me...we are so tribal these days. Scary times ahead for us a people.

You haven't shared any justification for demanding that both homeowners are present during your pitch. You haven't denied that it's a sales tactic. You also seem to disbelieve that people would get multiple quotes and only then make their decisions. Worse, you've tried to claim there's a legal basis for having to have both homeowners present for the pitch. When it was pointed out that it's the contract that controls, not the pitch, you or a fellow sales person then attacked that posted as a 5 cent Wikipedia lawyer.

More importantly, you haven't addressed the fact that this is generally a phenomenon experienced by women. It's rare to hear of a man running into this issue. Your response isnt that there can't be a sexist component to this practice because some salespersons are women, which is an ineffective defense.

Now, after 6 pages of customers complaining about this practice, about how it's disrespectful, and how it's used as a pressure tactic, you claim we're all just too tribal and things are too scary. In other words, rather than acknowledge you could be wrong, you go on the attack again.