While a home inspection cannot reasonably be expected to be exhaustive, such a clause lays the groundwork for the inspector’s denial of responsibility for any defect which is missed simply because he was not afforded the “necessary time” to find it.
The fundamental purpose of a home inspection is to record the existence of patent (apparent defects). Under Quebec law, the vendor is liable for latent (hidden) defects. If the inspector is not liable for failure to record apparent defects of consequence, then he is not really liable for anything, is he? Why then would one even bother to engage his services?
Unlike a clause which states that all items not contained in the mandate are excluded from the scope of inspection, this clause effectively removes responsibility from the inspector for anything which is not recorded in the report. What if the inspector was negligent or omitted to record the existence of an important defect? If it’s not in the report, he’s not responsible.
Since you may not be privy to the inspector’s training record and level of experience, would it not be preferable that the inspection findings are based on fact and observation, rather than on a personal (rather than expert) opinion?