Re: Problem with ADT Security Company

["R.H.Campbell" <rh.campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 No, a contract is a contract always, unless if directly contravenes the
law. The point I was trying to make, I believe I answered as best I can in
another post.

RHC


"Bob Worthy" <securinc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:6au5f.1530$aQ6.1115@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> So are you saying that because someone didn't read their agreement they
> shouldn't be held accountable? I would be interested in seeing the judges
> decission with that defense. I have reviewed many agreements for different
> companies. I have a folder caulk full of agreements from my competitors.
> The
> renewal clause is always in the terms. I have never seen one that had the
> clause hidden somewhere else in the body of the agreement. If it were,
> then
> and only then might a judge have a question about it.
>
> "R.H.Campbell" <rh.campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:4cqdnaJFiLXBz8veRVn-tg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> True enough on the surface for sure. However, how many salespeople tell
> the
>> client about this little clause when they first sign the contract ?
>> Realistically, none. And how many people read each and every word of any
>> contract they sign before they sign it ? Again, almost none ! Hell, I
> can't
>> even get them to read my standard one page agreement !! Most people still
>> deal with companies and each other from a basis of trust, and unless
>> prompted otherwise, will go on that basis. And we of all people should be
>> trusted; after all, the client is trusting us with his security !
>>
>> Business contracts should not be set up with automatic "traps" for people
>> signing them. If the company told the client up front about this, and the
>> client was stupid enough to sign off on it (by initialling the clause or
>> some such thing), then obviously it would be acceptable. But to sneak it
> in,
>> as some companies do for the express purpose of limiting the clients
>> options, is unacceptable.
>>
>> But if the client is stupid enough to agree to this KNOWINGLY, then he
> will
>> be held to it (unless the law itself gives him some sort of relief on
>> this
>> point)
>>
>> RHC
>>
>>
>> "moe" <moe@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:IVr5f.1225$lt.568@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > that is written into the contract and if the prospective customer
> doesn't
>> > want that "auto renewal" then all they have to do is not sign the
>> > contract. Nobody forced anyone to sign a contract.  But if you sign
>> > then
>> > you should live up to what you agreed to do.
>> >
>> > "R.H.Campbell" <rh.campbell@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> > news:LcqdnXQd2bAU2sveRVn-gA@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >> Mark, normally what seems to happen in most cases is the client after
> the
>> >> first contract has expired, goes on a month to month basis. Then the
>> >> client remains on month to month indefinately. Then as you say, the
>> >> client can terminate with a months notice. My only objection is some
>> >> companies (a minority thankfully) don't operate this way; instead,
>> >> they
>> >> continue to duplicate the original term once again unless the client
>> >> takes positive action, needlessly locking the client in to another
>> >> long
>> >> term.
>> >>
>> >> That's what I'm suggesting is not a legitimate way to operate
>> >>
>> >> RHC
>> >>
>> >> "Mark Leuck" <m..leuck@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> >> news:_P2dnczKlc4IXMjenZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> >>>
>> >>> I would normally agree with you on parts of this RH but even with a 5
>> >>> year
>> >>> agreement the customer can also cancel if he gives a 1 month notice
>> >>> after
>> >>> the contract finishes
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>