Re: Evergreen Clause

[tourman <robercampbell@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Nov 15, 1:42 pm, "Bob La Londe" <nos...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> "tourman" <robercampb...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>
> news:c5ffc6d9-2d65-47c9-9505-5e3bce33804b@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
> > 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 ?  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.
>
> > I do believe that alarmco contracts usually give you the option to
> > totally opt out of the contract if they raise the rates beyond the
> > cost of living clause normally included in the contract. In this
> > sense, they are certainly slightly fairer than this companies
> > contract.
>
> Hopefully this will show up eventually.  Google is not working right now,
> and my free usneet server takes forever.
>
> Anyway,  I agree and I disagree... and so do you.  Well at least you did in
> the past.  There are places for long term contracts when consideration is
> given.  Also once you agree to a contract you should honor it, but asking
> for a long term contract without giving anything in return for that long
> term liability is just plane wrong.
>
> --
> 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
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com

RHC: Yeah, nothing has changed in the way I feel about how this long
term contract business is applied in our industry. I guess I just
don't get as riled up as I used to anymore. If someone decides to make
that kind of disadvantageous decision for themselves, then so be it !
A fool and his money are soon parted....

But a long term contract for a dumpster ??? Cripes !!...doesn't that
beat all.....:((