Terminating an alarm company contract early

[Lou]

If any suggestions work please post back.

Lou

[jJim McLaughlin]

Please read the OP's posts before you post.

The alarm system was already installed by th property owner BEFORE the OP, as a renter, moved in.

Wasn't anything to "pay for " "up front". The $"$99.00" come on never applied in this case.

Facts matter.

[jJim McLaughlin]

No, the alarm system had already been installed by the prior resident, who was the owner.

Stop wandering off nto fantasy land n your attempts to justify a corporate theft.

[jJim McLaughlin]

Finally, somebody who actually comrehended the fact pattern.

[George]

I did, the OP said he was 15 months into a 3 year alarm contract and wanted to not pay to terminate the contract. He mentioned nothing else.

[jJim McLaughlin]

George wrote:

You're not too bright, are you?

May 19, 5:19 PM, Dan posted i>

[dpb]

Those facts weren't disclosed initially and we still haven't seen any of the wording of the contract that he signed, so we don't have a clue of what the contract terms are.

--

[Doug Miller]

LOL - apparently, neither does he...

[mm]

By the time he gets back to you, or by the time they activate the system, they will have signed their own contract. Use reverse 411 to get their numbre and call them directly. Or you or ask a friend in the n'hood to go over their and get their number, or at least leave a note on their door asking them to call you.

[mm]

Come to think of it, I can cancel my in-house telephone and electric any time I wanted, but I didn't sign a contract for them. I just called on the phone and they connected it afaicr. Gas is like that too.

I don't remember cable tv. And I don't know about cable internet or voip.

Cellphones have all kinds of longterm deals.

Burglar alarm companies might well need a contract even when one can cancel at will, because they need the customer to acknowledge the limitations of the services provided. They're not going to send an army if the alarm goes off, only call you and then call the police. I haven't seen one of those contracts yet, but I wonder if it limits the promises it makes on that. like "within 5 minutes".

[Dan]

And apparently you'd rather been insulting than insightful, but my guess is that well's pretty dry where you're concerned.

Plonk, moron.

Thank you to all who provided helpful replies.

Dan

[mm]

Angela J. Davis. Sorry.

Angela J. Davis, the lawyer; not Angela Y. Davis, the Communist philosophy professor.

The second one is usually referred to without a middle initial, and I thought the radio show went to the trouble to include a middle initial to make clear it wasn't the same person, and I wondered why they didn't just say it was a different person. But then, strangely, I did the same thing here.

Angela J. Davis is pretty clearly a moderate, going out of her way several times to say that she thought it was proper for police to have discretion about whom they arrest, and for prosecutors to have discretion about whom they charge etc. But she wanted people to know that they are not perfect either. Wherever there are people, things are not perfect, usually far from perfect.

Certainly anyone who was disgusted at Niefong's behaviour will agree with much of what is in her book, _Arbitrary Justice: The Power of the American Prosecutor_.

Right. Nobody has that, so a lot of people are chiming in with other stuff. But he seemed to appreciate some of the other stuff.

[mm]

I still don't know, but it turns out that this expression is only a maxim. Doesn't change anything else I've said, or even what I said about this, but some more info from answers.com, fwiw. Nothing exactly parallel to your situation:

Equity abhors a forfeiture.

A forfeiture is a total loss of a right or a thing because of the failure to do something as required. A total loss is usually a rather stiff penalty. Unless a penalty is reasonable in relation to the seriousness of the fault, it is too harsh. In fairness and good conscience, a court of equity will refuse to permit an unreasonable forfeiture. This maxim has particularly strong application to the ownership of land, an interest for which the law shows great respect. Title to land should never be lost for a trivial reason?for example, a delay of only a few days in closing a deal to purchase a house.

Generally equity will not interfere with a forfeiture that is required by statute, such as the loss of an airplane illegally used to smuggle drugs into the country. Unless the statute violates the due process requirements of the Constitution, the penalty should be enforced. Equity abhors a forfeiture does not overcome the maxim that equity follows the law.

Neither will equity disregard a contract provision that was fairly bargained. Generally it is assumed that a party who does most of what is required in a business contract, and does it in a reasonable way, should not be penalized for the violation of a minor technicality. A contractor who completes work on a bridge one day late, for example, should not be treated as though he or she had breached the entire contract. If the parties, however, include in their agreement an express provision, such as time is of the essence, this means that both of the parties understand that performance on time is essential. The party who fails to perform on time would forfeit all rights under the contract.

[dpb]

Dan wrote: ...

It is easy (and somehow more fun, too :) ) to pontificate, though... :(

I'm still guessing your best hope would be for the new renter to simply pick up on the existing contract w/o involving the provider further -- I'm guessing they would want yet another extended contract. What else you might be able to negotiate is anybody's guess...

As I noted, I've done without some services simply because the terms offered routinely are too onerous/one-sided imo and I haven't desired the service badly enough to fight the battle. Fortunately I haven't had to make the stand on something of either real importance or of an insatiable desire otherwise... :)

Good luck...

--