Probably should not have laughed

Ted Menelly · 03-05-2009, 09:55 AM

My inspection with the owners there on an 11 month warranty while hitting the start button on the micro wave there was a large shorting sound and a bright glow at one of the screws inside.

At the end of the inspection the woman asks if I had that insurance to cover for repairs. I asked "repairs on what" she said "on the mmicro wave because you were the last one to touch it.

I could not help myself and a quick chuckle/laugh came out and I told her that my insurance company would do what I just did. She was instantly PO. I can only imagine what may be coming next.

I quickly added that she could have been the one to put a cup of water in there to heat it up and it would have been her that hit the button and it still would have shorted and then who would you be looking for to pay for it. Man , she is now getting more disgruntled.

I also quickly added that anything I just inspected in then home can stop working the moment I exit the front door. I told her that the home inspection is not a warranty or garranty of anykind and there will be mechanical breakdowns. Now she is really turning red in the face and the steam coming out of her ears.

Luckily I already got my check and I shook there hands and said "have a nice day.

I'm just curious how nice a day I will be having in the future when this woman tries to put every breakdown on me for the next few years.

Oh well. Such is life.

**Matt Fellman** · 03-05-2009, 10:08 AM

I had a similar one once with a garage door opener. It broke when I tested it and right away the agent said something about my insurance to cover that.

Aside from the fact that it wasn't my fault, don't these agents know anything about insurance? What kind of insurance do they have in mind that doesn't have a deductible that would exceed a microwave or a door opener?

Oh sure, I just call them up and ask for a $50 check.... they send it right over.

**Jerry Peck** · 03-05-2009, 12:40 PM

That's where my old phrase, which many are now using (but I see some are still not using

) comes in: "failed under testing".

You use that something like this:

Yes ma'am, that sure did arc and spark when *I* pressed the button, didn't it? That "failed under testing". It sure was a GOOD THING *I* pressed that button and tested it like you hired me to come here and do. If I had not pressed that button to test it like I did, that microwave *MAY NOT HAVE FAILED UNTIL NEXT MONTH* - right after the one year warranty runs out. SURE IS A GOOD THING *I* tested that and that it "failed under testing" TODAY.

Fred Warner · 03-05-2009, 02:07 PM

Good psychology, Jerry.

**Rick Hurst** · 03-05-2009, 05:13 PM

Ted,

I use other tactics. I say things like "Its a good thing I wasn't electrocuted touching *your* microwave or *my* family would have probably been owning *your* home after *my* funeral and the court settlement."

rick

william siegel · 03-05-2009, 06:36 PM

Rick,

You have such a way with words.

Ken Bates · 03-05-2009, 10:34 PM

I have an edited version of this ready to hand out.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because of this", is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) which states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which the chronological ordering of a correlation is insignificant.

Richard Stanley · 03-06-2009, 06:43 AM

Porn is not allowed on this site.

Fred Warner · 03-06-2009, 07:26 AM

Originally Posted by Richard Stanley

Porn is not allowed on this site.

Huh????????

Wayne Wright · 03-06-2009, 07:40 AM

Originally Posted by Ken Bates

I have an edited version of this ready to hand out.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

Post hoc ergo propter hoc, Latin for "after this, therefore because of this", is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) which states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which the chronological ordering of a correlation is insignificant.

Damn Skippy!