I know that in some states what you say is true. In California, even though the buyer usually hires the inspector (sometimes a seller will do a home inspection prior to listing) ALL REPORTS regarding the condition of a home generated by a professional or licensed individual, must be made part of the disclosures.

Its been found in the courts, that home inspectors have the same duty as agents with regard to fair dealing, and representation to ALL parties.

You've touched on a really good point but, this is how the law treats these reports and is customary business practice. The only problem I have come across is when there are more than one prospective buyer who have hired inspectors and have submitted conflicting reports. That was an interesting experience... In the end our legal advice was to include both reports as attachments to the TDS, and the attorney instructed that there is no 'privilage' with regard to who 'owns' the report regardless of who pays for it, or who prepares it. After the legal consultation, the transaction went smoothly, it paled in comparison to the time when I received conflicting reports from 2 different inspectors who worked for the SAME COMPANY!

Whew! 2 Cents, I'd say thats worth at least a buck!

As to the timing of when to present an inspection report, The advice I've always had was 'as soon as practical'. And I'm not aware of cases that have forced a report be released "PRIOR" to negotiation (prior to closing escrow yes), and I'm not suggesting that a buyer can't utilize an inspection report to better their position when it comes to negotiation.

In fact, an inspection report usually provides a foundation upon which to begin a negotiation in price, though if a buyer asks for a seller concession because of a faulty system, they had better be able to prove that finding if they truely expect to receive it.

You are correct that many seller's choose not to see obvious problems and therefore remain, 'unaware' of them. That is something I have never supported and never will. When representing a buyer in a transaction where Mr. Seller says there isn't any water damage presenting an inspection report gives the buyer a "gotcha" who now has to make a decision... Either take the home for what it is, ask for repair or credit, or walk away from the transaction. In the case of the latter, Mr. seller can no longer say he is unaware of water damage when the next buyer comes along.

As to your "what if", if a buyer doesn't feel like they are being fairly represented by a seller's agent, thats a serious matter for a different forum. And in truth, if that is the case, the inspector or the buyer's agent or any other third party won't be able to cure that.

As far as a client being able to choose how and when to share information, they should. As soon as they receive the report, they should thank the inspector for his hard work and ask for a copy to be sent to their agent who should know that they are obligated not to withold that information. Note that I said, "should know".

Finally, you mentioned a "sellers inspector who is trying to hide bad findings" I've never met an inspector (luckily) that would do that, and I think its more likely that the seller simply would withold that inspection report from the buyer, which I'm sure has happened and would almost guarantee it has... Presumeably, that is why almost every act of a California Real Estate Licensee is prescribed by law. Conversely it is also possible for a buyer to withold a report which contains information beneficial to the seller or relevant to the transaction. All of which, opens the door for ambulance chasing lawyers to make new rules for us to follow. No offense to ambulance chasing lawyers.