[Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Message Index][Thread Index]

Re: Law Suit in NJ

Subject: Re: Law Suit in NJ
From: "news.comcast.net" <acoutinhobass@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 12 Nov 2006 07:47:20 -0500
Newsgroups: alt.security.alarms
References: <GfL4h.10484$1v.9076@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <40a5b5b36d3af22c9bd45f3ecbc0fe02@xxxxxxxxx> <aY25h.13517$U76.7482@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <w7c5h.2579$hM5.1723@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <1163222232.757298.325280@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1163222902.766018.196540@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

> 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...

Hey idiot, it's a state case.  NBFAA is misleading you to get you to donate
in support of their most powerful member.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Law Suit in NJ
  - From: Jim

References:
- Law Suit in NJ
  - From: Bob Worthy
- Re: Law Suit in NJ
  - From: Nomen Nescio
- Re: Law Suit in NJ
  - From: Bob Worthy
- Re: Law Suit in NJ
  - From: Doug
- Re: Law Suit in NJ
  - From: Everywhere Man
- Re: Law Suit in NJ
  - From: Jim

Prev by Message: Re: Fire Alarm System Inspections. How and how much?
Next by Message: Re: Fire Alarm System Inspections. How and how much?
Previous by thread: Re: Law Suit in NJ
Next by thread: Re: Law Suit in NJ
Index(es):
- Message
- Thread

alt.security.alarms Main Index | alt.security.alarms Thread Index | alt.security.alarms Home | Archives Home