Re: Brinks Home Security Evergreen Clause

[Frank Olson <Use-the-email-links@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Edmond Fitzgerald wrote:

> I really wish I knew a better way to put it this, but
> "Well Duh".  And by the way, I am not the Edmond Fitzgerald.

I'm not *the* "Frank Olson" either.  ;-)


> Just as I expected.

You expect someone to publish their employment details in a Newsgroup
that boasts an individual famous for sending lies and nonsense to
employers and colleagues of some of the participants?  It's not enough
that my spam filters are constantly trapping email from South America??
    :-)



>> Yet you seem to think that any company that would elect to enforce an
>> "evergreen clause" should be considered a "bottom feeder".  "
>
> Not at all.   It's fine to have an "evergreen clause".  I don't want to get
> new contracts each year if I'm the company and I don't want to deal with a
> new contract each year if I'm the customer.  But that doesn't mean I'm
> necessarily going to accept a cancellation provision heavily loaded in the
> company's favor just because I'm the customer.  And I'm not going to rely on
> a salesman telling me the company doesn't enforce the egregious provision.

And what salesman would say that?  That's the easiest "excuse" a person
dumb enough to sign a contract with just such a clause without reading
it would dream up.  "The *salesman* said you guys don't enforce it."
You used the term "bottom feeders" to describe certain "nameless" alarm
companies and now narrow the field to certain "nameless" salespeople.
Who's the real "bottom feeder" here?  Surely not the customer that's
trying to use every dirty trick in the book to get off of paying the
cancellation fee?  It's gotta be that slimy salesman!


> Come on.

Exactly.