Re: Law Suit in NJ

[Nomen Nescio <nobody@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jim said:

>I believe the reason is ...... that if it's decided against ADT, then
>in the future the case can be refered to by any lawyer in US, as a
>precedent to throw out the
>limitation of libility clause in any alarm contract. If that happens, obviously
>our insurance rates are going to skyrocket and I mean REALLY skyrocket.
> It doesn't matter that it's ADT. It's the elimination of the
>limitation of libility clause.

If Doug is right, and ADT simply forgot to sign the contract, then all our
contracts are safe.  The judge would simply be saying that if the alarm
company didn't sign the contract, it can't enforce the terms of that
contract.  Sounds fair enough to me.

ADT will argue that it handed the subscriber a copy of the contract, and
that both sides performed  their obligations under that contract, and that
what matters is that the subscriber signed the contract.  After all, he's
the one that wants to get out of the contract,, not ADT. (actually, his
insurance company).

It should be interesting when it goes up on appeal.  That'll take a year or
so, probably.

And Tom is right, it will be a cold day in hell before I chip in a dime to
pay ADT's legal bills.

- badenov