Difficult question and something I will have to think more about. Certainly, it's better for the seller to fix it, but I don't really know how that fits in morally or ethically.

Firstly, morals are religious based, while ethics are philosophically based. As an inspector, I have had to mention that panels are in unsafe locations or that a particular brand is unsafe (FPE panels are still around). In one way, I am not supposed to stress on finding over another. What happens when the smoke detector does not work, and there is that unsafe panel? If I stress the panel, but the fire starts in the house close to the malfunctioning detector, should I stress the panel repair? Have I served my clients well? In a perfect world, the seller should make the repairs, but we know that they do not always want to. I try to advise my clients about the dangers in a reasonable way. For example, I have an FPE box on my home, and I have not had an incident, but I am very cautious around it, and I have it on my list to replace this year. For forty years it has been on this house without incident. I suggest that you weigh your words, because there might be something else going on in the house that could be a greater priority.

i think because the house has had issue before.. red flag sign,,!!!  disclose it,,

Good post but difficult answer. I remember a professor giving at least 2 lectures on this topic while going to school at Lipscomb University. I believe the conclusion was the answer lies within your own fabric and internal guidance. 8-}

In response to Cathy.  If the seller asks your advice on whether they should change the panel or not, don't you think your answer would be based morally and ethically  on the right thing to do.  Would it make a difference if the client was a personal friend or just a client?

In response to Brian.......Huh?  I'm not sure what you are referring to.  What previous issue?  Disclose what?

In response to Frank,  I don't know if I agree on the issues of Morals and Ethics.  Philisophically speaking are we to say that those without religion are also without morals?  I don't know how deep I want to get into that, but appreciate your comment.  I do agree that we cannot stress one issue over another.  i'm sure we both agree that on inspections, there are defects and there are also defects which can be a safety concern.  I used the panel as an example, because I think if you have been around real estate for any period of time, we have all run into the FPE panels (there are also other split bus panels that fall into this quandry also).  Parenthesis comment is not for you Frank, but for any others that may read this comment.  I know as an inspector, your job is to evaluate and give an assessment, but really restricts you to some level of advising  to repair or replace.  Typically inspectors advise if there is any question as to a piece of equipments function for safety or life expectancy, to contact the specialist for that product, ie. electrician, HVAC tech, etc.  I would pose the question as in my comment to Cathy, if this was your friend that owned the home, would you verbally advise something, beyond what you put in writing?  I am not asking for your reply, just want you to think about it as I often do?  Morals vs. Ethics is not always an easy concept and as black and white as some declare.

Thanks again for your response and comments.

Mike, I think the only unethical and immoral reaction in this type of situation would be for the agent to convince the buyers that the box was fine, move in, don't worry.  Or for the sellers to lie and say they had the guts of the box replaced so it really isn't a bad box any more.

For the buyers, the bottom line is what works for them.  If a shady box doesn't work, does paying to have it replaced after settlement work?  if not, how about insisting the sellers do it or they'll walk?  And how does walking feel as an option?

And for the sellers, would it work for them to just replace the box, sell the house and move on, or does it work better for them to let this deal go if the buyers won't take it with the squirrelly breaker box, and wait for another sucker to show up.

Going out of one's way to conceal various defects, whether the seller or the agent is doing it, doesn't work for anyone in the transaction.  Buyer is lied to, house burns down, seller gets sued. 

So my bottom line is always however you answer the question, "What works?" And when I present it that way to a client or a colleague, it seems to work a lot better than if I present it as a moral or ethical issue.  There's a sort of holier than thou aspect that just goes away.

In response to Patricia, I agree with your reply to the questions.  I never tried to imply however that anyone had or should lie to one another.  That should never be done.  I do wonder if, especially with safety related issues, we don't push the seller a little harder to correct something for not only the potential liability, but also because we as humans might have difficulty dealing with the potentially dangerous situations results.  Sometimes advisement goes beyond explanation and what works for either party?

I certainly don't convey a holier than thou persona, but I think the majority of us might allow our morals come into play more if we played out the same scenario for our friends than with a client.  My question is should we?