Re: Evergreen Clause

[Matt Ion <soundy106@xxxxxxxxx>]

tourman wrote:
> On Nov 15, 11:35 am, Bob La Londe <alarm_wiz...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> One company buys out another and immediately raise rates by $10 a
>> month.  Then they send out a mandatory contreact renewal which says
>> you have to sign a 36 month minimum contract.
>>
>> "Term.  The initial term of this agreement shall start on the date of
>> this agreement and continue for 36 months thereafter,  This agreement
>> shall automatically renew for successive 36 month terms unless either
>> party gives written notice of termination to the other at least 60
>> days before the end of tyhe then current term.  Any notice of
>> termination under this agreement by customer shall be void unless sent
>> via certified mail, return receipt requested, and actually received by
>> company."
>>
>> Sounds like a pretty much standard contract term for the alarm
>> industry with the except of the rather short (60 days) prior written
>> notice to cancel.  I would have just considered it business as usual
>> if received from Brinks or ADT or P-1.  This was from my dumpster
>> service.  They should be getting their dumpster the "F" off my
>> property by end of business tommorrow.
>>
>> Bob La Londe
>> The guy who decides who we do business with.
>>
>> The Security Consultant
>> PO Box 5720
>> Yuma, Az 85366
>>
>> (928) 782-9765 ofc
>> (928) 782-7873 fax
>> alarm_wiz...@xxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> Contractors License Numbers
>> ROC103040 & ROC103047
>
> RHC: Well, I don't want to restart the endless argument for or against
> long term contracts here, but if this is an acceptable way of doing
> business for the alarm industry, then why isn't it acceptable for any
> other business ?

In case you haven't been paying attention to a.s.a for the last couple
months... I don't believe this IS considered an acceptable way of doing
business in the alarm industry, either.  At least not in these parts.

 > I hope you see the irony here; it's not meant as any
> sort of criticism in response to your post. I am simply pointing out
> that if this sort of dreadful contractual arrangement is OK for alarm
> companies to engage in, then it should also be acceptable for other
> industries to try to "guarantee their revenue stream" as well.

It's not the long-term contracts that are at issue, though - it's the
automatic-renewal-for-another-long-term-unless-you-opt-out-with-lots-of-lead-time
clause that's got people riled.

With my cel provider, I have the option to sign up for service three
years at a time, and in exchange I get a new phone for free or cheap
(shorter contracts are also available, with lower subsidies on new
phones).  Yet when my contract is up, it's not automatically renewed for
me - I just keep going along at the same monthly rate, on the same
airtime plan, until such time as I decide to renew or cancel.  And I can
cancel anytime I want after the contract is up, no penalties, no
keep-paying-until-the-end-of-the-month.

Again, the long-term contract itself is not the problem - it's the fact
that customers are given only a narrow window to opt out, and if they
don't, they're stuck for another long term.

In fact, this type of contract would probably be illegal here in BC,
where a cable provider was smacked down several years ago for a similar
type of "negative-option" billing: they would add new channels and
service tiers without asking whether customers wanted them, and then
after a short period (60-90 days), would start charging for them, unless
the customer went out of his way to say he DIDN'T want them.