Re: Evergreen Clause

[tourman <robercampbell@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Nov 15, 1:34 pm, Matt Ion <soundy...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.

RHC: Yes, there was a national alarm company here that used to do that
as well (VSN Security). They had a clause that unless you advised them
in writing a full three months in advance of the end of the five year
term, the contract would renew for another term of five years.
Amazingly enough, no one complained unless they happened to be ending
up on the dirty end of that stick ! Seems the average consumer just
doesn't shop carefully enough...

Also, the local cable company Rogers tried "negative option marketing"
a few years ago, and the hue and cry from the public forced them to
retract their approach.

At least with the cell phone providers you actually get something
tangible for the disadvantage of signing a long term contract.