Re: Law Suit in NJ

["Jim" <alarminex@xxxxxxx>]

news.comcast.net wrote:
> > 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.

Fuck you, dead man.
What do you care what happens?  You're going to be dead by the time the
case is concluded anyway.



>From Ken Kirshebaum:
The ADT appellate brief does emphasis the importance this case has to
the
alarm industry, not just in NJ but nationwide. No case that whittles
away at
the solid foundation of case law the alarm industry has built up should
be
ignored or taken lightly. While the trial judge's comments regarding
the
particular provisions of the ADT contract are not in published
decisions,
those comments are now going to be before the Appellate Court, and if
that
court comments on the issues the Appellate Court decision is almost
certain
to be published, which means all lawyers and judges researching the
issues
will find it and use it in their arguments. Suffice it to say that it
is
important that ADT have a decisive victory on its appeal.
The NBFAA, I believe that the request of the NJ Burglar and Fire Alarm
Association, has decided to engage competent counsel to offer a
national
perspective to the court in an amicus brief. I should add that ADT's
trial
counsel, at least from my limited review of the appeal papers, seems to
have
done a competent job. I think this trial judge is out on a thin limb
and
will be reversed or ignored in future cases. The Appellate Court has to

first agree that an amicus brief can be filed. This "friend of the
court'
brief will in many ways mirror the brief by ADT's counsel, but will
likely
have a more nationwide emphasis and strengthen ADT's argument that this

decision has potential to impact beyond NJ.
The trial record and the briefs in the case are extensive and I have
not
read though the papers but wanted to share what I know so far. I am
sure
there is going to be more discussion on this topic.