On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:36:11 -0700, "Dan" wrote:

We recently moved from a rental house in the Seattle area where we had
Protection One alarm service. We were approximately 15 months into the 3
year contract. They are billing us for the remainder of the term, nearly
$700. Needless to say, I would prefer not to pay for service we will not be
using. Has anyone had any experience terminating such a contract early,
particularly with Protection One?

First, maybe you can get your coverage transferred to your new
location. Do they cover that area. Even if it is a long distance
call when you have an alarm or a test, that extra money will be a
pittance, if they are in a position to notify the police (or whatever
they do) in your new location.

If you can work something like this out, you probably will have to,
because there is a general duty to mitigate damages in a contract
case. That is, even though it might be "wrong" for them to collect
money for no service, they did have a reasonable expectation you would
be there long enough to complete your contract. Usually this means
finding a new tenant for an apartment, or covering up even unordered
building materials so they arent' ruined, but I think it would apply
here, before you asked for relieve as in the next paragraph here.


Also, is there any chance you can get the new tenants at your old
place to buy you out. But them you will have to give a discount to,
unless your pro-rated three year contract is already at a discount,
but the new tenant if he has any sense won't sign a contract with you,
he'll only pay month by month.

Alternatively, I have no expericence like you ask for, haha, but I
know the expression, The Law abhors a forfeiture. I think that is
what you have here, if you forfeit the 700 dollars while getting
nothing for it. But what the expression means in practice, I don't
know. But I don't think people are necessarily held to every term of
a contract, even if the contract is clear, despite the well
intentioned comments of many people here.

You also have a contract of adhesion, one you had no input in writing,
at least regarding the clause in question. IIRC that means that any
ambiguity in the contract is interpreted in favor of the party that
didn't draw the contract, but that might be a general rule and you
might even have a tad more with a contract of adhesion. I forget, and
different states are somewhat different anyhow, probably, even if I r
remembered.

I also keep having this baseless notion that it can be better to pay a
bill and sue for the money back then to risk a negative item on your
credit report for not paying in the first place. Even though you
could post an answer to the negative item on your credit report, I
don't know that that really negates the item. My notino is baseless,
because it comes totally out of my head. Check with someone who knows
about credit, and who knows if a suit after payment is made is harder
to win than if they sue you. They might not sue you, but then you
will surely have a negative item on your credit report, and no court
verdict to contradict it, only your own explanation.

I hear now that credit reports and credit score are used even when
deciding to issue health insurance, on the theory I guess that people
who don't take care of their bills don't take care of their bodies
either. Or some such notion. And I know if you let your fire
insurance lapse, some companies won't write a new policy. So I guess
credit score and other irrelevancies are more important than ever.

Please I'd apprecitate any feedback on this because it involves a few
issues I've wondered about for a long time, and might need to know
some day.

No offense meant, but anyone who says you don't want to pay what the
contract says would probably feel the same way in your shoes. Whether
he read the contract in advance or not.

Oh yeah, if you could show in court or even before court maybe that a
couple, several or every other company had a similar clause in their
contract, or that the company you went with had a feature that other
companies didn't offer, that would be good for you.

OTOH, if the company you are dealing with could show that you could
have had a month to month contract for more money, that would be bad
for you. You committed to 3 years to get a discount. OTOH, even if
there were this higher priced contract, you should calculate how much
15 months of that would have cost you, subract what you have already
paid, and offer to pay the difference. That would be fair, and would
make you look good. Don't just offer, send them a letter with the
caluculation in detail, and a check for the amount, marked Payment in
Full, above where the payee endorses, which is better than the comment
line beccause they are presumed to see that notation when they endorse
the check. I don't know what the law is on notes made on the comment
line, but that are is is mostly for your info, not for legal proof,
afaik. Though mayyybe this is influenced by whether you get your
checks themselves back, or you can only get printouts from the
computer. If you get the checks back, you can write in the comment
line after the fact. If you can get only a printout of both sides at
once, maybe a judge will take the comment line seriously.)

And don't use a money order or anything but your own checking account
for things like this, becausae you can't get a money order back and it
it is probably very hard to get an image of the check. And certainly
don't pay online because there is no way to make comments, or to prove
them later.
If no good answer during the life of this thread, maybe you can remove
NOPSAM from my -from address and write me some day.

Thanks

Dan