Dan wrote:
"Lou" wrote in message
...
You also might see if your state has a consumer protection office and
contact them. Also the Better Business Bureau may help.

Lou


Thanks, Lou

Dan



If any suggestions work please post back.

Lou

George wrote:

But what did the company do wrong? He didn't pay for the alarm up front
(thats the "all this for $99 commercial") so the deal is that he has to
pay for the deferred installation cost over the 3 year contract period.


Please read the OP's posts before you post.

The alarm system was already installed by th property
owner BEFORE the OP, as a renter, moved in.

Wasn't anything to "pay for " "up front".
The $"$99.00" come on never applied in this case.

Facts matter.

George wrote:

dpb wrote:

dadiOH wrote:

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?


I have no such experience; however, I know that similar contracts -
those calling for a service to be rendered in the future - have not
been upheld when the service cannot be provided for any reason...you
dying, you moving...


My understanding has been those have been for service, not
cancellation charges. I still think it depends on the terms of the
contract and his best bet is to ask either local legal advice or his
State AG's office if there's an out for these types of agreements...

--

Why would the AG be interested?

The usual deal with the "big box" alarm companies is that they advertise
"protect your house and family for $99". Obviously they can't do that
so they require that you enter a contract so that you actually pay for
the system over the contract term. Nothing illegal about that. The
contract contains specific language that needs to be fulfilled. In this
case they want to be paid to cover the deferred cost of the installation.

No, the alarm system had already been installed by the prior resident,
who was the
owner.

Stop wandering off nto fantasy land n your attempts
to justify a corporate theft.

dadiOH wrote:

George wrote:


The usual deal with the "big box" alarm companies is that they
advertise "protect your house and family for $99". Obviously they
can't do that
so they require that you enter a contract so that you actually pay
for the system over the contract term. Nothing illegal about that.
The contract contains specific language that needs to be fulfilled.
In this case they want to be paid to cover the deferred cost of the
installation.


As OP explained later in the thread, he was a renter and the alarm
system was in place when he rented. He has been paying only for
service and has no obligation to pay for future service that is not
rendered. Any unfulfilled obligation to the alarm company for
installation lies with whoever arranged for installation originally.


Finally, somebody who actually comrehended the fact pattern.

jJim McLaughlin wrote:
George wrote:

But what did the company do wrong? He didn't pay for the alarm up
front (thats the "all this for $99 commercial") so the deal is that he
has to pay for the deferred installation cost over the 3 year contract
period.


Please read the OP's posts before you post.

The alarm system was already installed by th property
owner BEFORE the OP, as a renter, moved in.

Wasn't anything to "pay for " "up front".
The $"$99.00" come on never applied in this case.

Facts matter.

I did, the OP said he was 15 months into a 3 year alarm contract and
wanted to not pay to terminate the contract. He mentioned nothing else.

George wrote:

jJim McLaughlin wrote:

George wrote:

But what did the company do wrong? He didn't pay for the alarm up
front (thats the "all this for $99 commercial") so the deal is that
he has to pay for the deferred installation cost over the 3 year
contract period.



Please read the OP's posts before you post.

The alarm system was already installed by th property
owner BEFORE the OP, as a renter, moved in.

Wasn't anything to "pay for " "up front".
The $"$99.00" come on never applied in this case.

Facts matter.


I did, the OP said he was 15 months into a 3 year alarm contract and
wanted to not pay to terminate the contract. He mentioned nothing else.

You're not too bright, are you?

May 19, 5:19 PM, Dan posted i
There was no installation. The system/their yard signs/window
stickers were
present in the house when we signed the lease. I'm assuming the
landlord,
who had lived in the house prior to renting it, had it installed.
There was
no mention of a "break" for signing a 3 year contract, or of any
alternate
time arrangement, in fact there was no mention of the term at all either
when I called to initiate the service, or when the guy came out to
"test it"
& get me to sign, even when I told him we were renting & looking to
buy in
the near future. Obviously he knew, but said nothing. I assumed it was
month to month. There is no mention of any term on the front of the
contract, it only appears on the back, which in retrospect I should have
taken 45 minutes to read (all 4 legal-size, fine-print boiler plate-ese
pages of it) while the "technician" stood there twiddling his thumbs.
This
was my 1st experience with an alarm company, had I known what I know
now, I
would have done things differently. I assumed it was like any other
"utility", cable, electric, telephone, gas, etc., maybe you had an
activation charge, but after that you paid monthly for as long as you
used
the service & when you were done, you were done. I'm sure all the
arm-chair
know-it-alls will claim they ALLLLLLWAYS read all the boiler plate,
regardless of how long & regardless of who's waiting but most people
don't,
a fact the businesses rely on. I have an e-mail in to the landlord
inquiring if the new tenants have signed with them. For all I know, the
people before us are still paying for an early termination, the present
tenants are paying for current service, and they expect me to pay
until 2009
as well. Is this legal? Well I'm sure their army of attorneys has
assured
that it is. Whether it's right is another question.
n this thread:

jJim McLaughlin wrote:
dadiOH wrote:

George wrote:


The usual deal with the "big box" alarm companies is that they
advertise "protect your house and family for $99". Obviously they
can't do that
so they require that you enter a contract so that you actually pay
for the system over the contract term. Nothing illegal about that.
The contract contains specific language that needs to be fulfilled.
In this case they want to be paid to cover the deferred cost of the
installation.


As OP explained later in the thread, he was a renter and the alarm
system was in place when he rented. He has been paying only for
service and has no obligation to pay for future service that is not
rendered. Any unfulfilled obligation to the alarm company for
installation lies with whoever arranged for installation originally.


Finally, somebody who actually comrehended the fact pattern.

Those facts weren't disclosed initially and we still haven't seen any of
the wording of the contract that he signed, so we don't have a clue of
what the contract terms are.

--

In article , dpb wrote:

Those facts weren't disclosed initially and we still haven't seen any of
the wording of the contract that he signed, so we don't have a clue of
what the contract terms are.

LOL - apparently, neither does he...

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 21:31:43 -0700, "Dan" wrote:

"Kitep" wrote in message
.. .
I'll have to agree with the other poster who suggested

1) Try to get the new tenant to take over the payments

Thanks for the reply. I don't see that happening, but I have asked the
landlord if he knows if they have activated the system

By the time he gets back to you, or by the time they activate the
system, they will have signed their own contract. Use reverse 411 to
get their numbre and call them directly. Or you or ask a friend in
the n'hood to go over their and get their number, or at least leave a
note on their door asking them to call you.

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 08:39:11 -0700, jJim McLaughlin
wrote:

I assumed it was like any other
"utility", cable, electric, telephone, gas, etc., maybe you had an
activation charge, but after that you paid monthly for as long as you
used
the service & when you were done, you were done

Come to think of it, I can cancel my in-house telephone and electric
any time I wanted, but I didn't sign a contract for them. I just
called on the phone and they connected it afaicr. Gas is like that
too.

I don't remember cable tv. And I don't know about cable internet or
voip.

Cellphones have all kinds of longterm deals.

Burglar alarm companies might well need a contract even when one can
cancel at will, because they need the customer to acknowledge the
limitations of the services provided. They're not going to send an
army if the alarm goes off, only call you and then call the police. I
haven't seen one of those contracts yet, but I wonder if it limits the
promises it makes on that. like "within 5 minutes".

"Doug Miller" wrote in message
t...
In article , dpb wrote:


LOL - apparently, neither does he...

And apparently you'd rather been insulting than insightful, but my guess is
that well's pretty dry where you're concerned.

Plonk, moron.

Thank you to all who provided helpful replies.

Dan

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 06:05:13 -0700, wrote:

bad behaviour of the prosecutor. Angela S. Davis was on the radio

Angela J. Davis. Sorry.

today and she was saying that not disclosing exculpatory evidence is
something that happens every day. It's just that most cases don't
have such obvious holes, like an alibi that the prosecutor ignored. Or
the obviousness that if they didn't rape her, the dna in her won't be
theirs, so what does the DNA show. Also, most people don't have the
money to pursue the issue well enough to find the undislocosed excul
evidenc and the other thing she mentioned.

And now you got me really laughing. You believe and find credible
what Angela Davis has to say about our court system? Why not just
ask Fidel Castro or Hugo Chavez?

Angela J. Davis, the lawyer; not Angela Y. Davis, the Communist
philosophy professor.

The second one is usually referred to without a middle initial, and I
thought the radio show went to the trouble to include a middle initial
to make clear it wasn't the same person, and I wondered why they
didn't just say it was a different person. But then, strangely, I did
the same thing here.

Angela J. Davis is pretty clearly a moderate, going out of her way
several times to say that she thought it was proper for police to have
discretion about whom they arrest, and for prosecutors to have
discretion about whom they charge etc. But she wanted people to know
that they are not perfect either. Wherever there are people, things
are not perfect, usually far from perfect.

http://www.amazon.com/Arbitrary-Just...2364264&sr=8-6

Certainly anyone who was disgusted at Niefong's behaviour will agree
with much of what is in her book, _Arbitrary Justice: The Power of the
American Prosecutor_.

As for the question at hand, it appears to me that Dan came here
asking a very simple and relevant question. And that was whether
anyone had any direct experience dealing with this company in a
similar situation. Which is valid, because if he knows the company
has settled for say 1/2 with others in a similar situation, that's
very useful to know. Apparently, no one has the experience.

Right. Nobody has that, so a lot of people are chiming in with other
stuff. But he seemed to appreciate some of the other stuff.

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 19:25:39 -0400, mm
wrote:

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.

I still don't know, but it turns out that this expression is only a
maxim. Doesn't change anything else I've said, or even what I said
about this, but some more info from answers.com, fwiw. Nothing
exactly parallel to your situation:

Equity abhors a forfeiture.

A forfeiture is a total loss of a right or a thing because of the
failure to do something as required. A total loss is usually a rather
stiff penalty. Unless a penalty is reasonable in relation to the
seriousness of the fault, it is too harsh. In fairness and good
conscience, a court of equity will refuse to permit an unreasonable
forfeiture. This maxim has particularly strong application to the
ownership of land, an interest for which the law shows great respect.
Title to land should never be lost for a trivial reason—for example, a
delay of only a few days in closing a deal to purchase a house.

Generally equity will not interfere with a forfeiture that is required
by statute, such as the loss of an airplane illegally used to smuggle
drugs into the country. Unless the statute violates the due process
requirements of the Constitution, the penalty should be enforced.
Equity abhors a forfeiture does not overcome the maxim that equity
follows the law.

Neither will equity disregard a contract provision that was fairly
bargained. Generally it is assumed that a party who does most of what
is required in a business contract, and does it in a reasonable way,
should not be penalized for the violation of a minor technicality. A
contractor who completes work on a bridge one day late, for example,
should not be treated as though he or she had breached the entire
contract. If the parties, however, include in their agreement an
express provision, such as time is of the essence, this means that
both of the parties understand that performance on time is essential.
The party who fails to perform on time would forfeit all rights under
the contract.


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.

Dan wrote:
....

Thank you to all who provided helpful replies.


It is easy (and somehow more fun, too ) to pontificate, though...

I'm still guessing your best hope would be for the new renter to simply
pick up on the existing contract w/o involving the provider further --
I'm guessing they would want yet another extended contract. What else
you might be able to negotiate is anybody's guess...

As I noted, I've done without some services simply because the terms
offered routinely are too onerous/one-sided imo and I haven't desired
the service badly enough to fight the battle. Fortunately I haven't had
to make the stand on something of either real importance or of an
insatiable desire otherwise...

Good luck...

--