**********************
NOTICE:  Yesterday's email referred to a Christmas discount on contracts which was an error because we didn't have time to put that offer together.  Since so many of you caught that error and let me know you've been waiting for the "sale", and because I'd like to encourage all of you to update your contracts as part of your 2015 New Year's resolutions, we will offer a discount in the first week of January.  If you can't wait call our Contract Administrator Eileen Wagda at 516 747 6700 x 312 and ask for the pre-sale discount.  Wishing you, your family and staff a happy, healthy and prosperous new year.


PS- updates are free within 6 months of purchase; half price within one year of purchase; thereafter, full price.  Eileen knows your exact date of purchase.  Central Stations - the new Dealer Agreement will have price increase Jan 1.  As us lawyers are so fond of saying, "Be guided accordingly."

*************************
QUESTION:  HOW SUB CAN ACCEPT CONTRACT
*********************
 Ken,
    If we email a contract and the recipient cannot print it or scan it to sign and emails back  "I accept the contract terms", is that acceptable as legal acceptance of the contract? 
Stay Safe,
Stuart Rosenberg ME, CET, President 
Philadelphia Detection Systems Inc
*********************
ANSWER
*********************
    Quick answer is Yes.  If you think about it, a signed contract is enforceable because the signature confirms and verifies the party's acceptance of the contract.  But most any verifiable form of acceptance or confirmation of acceptance will work just as well.  Problem is establishing the confirmation.  So if you accept an email confirming the acceptance of the contract you need to be careful that the wording and reference to the agreement is unequivocable and clear.  For example.  Your email the contract as an attachment.  You instruct the sub to confirm acceptance by Reply email.  But the subscriber's Reply does not include the original email with the attachment or even reference to the attachment.  All you get back is a Reply email that states: "I accept" or "I accept the terms of your contract".  
    I don't think either of the above is sufficient.  If the Reply contained the original email with attachment it would suffice.  If it contained the original email that referenced the attachment it would probably suffice.  If the Reply stated: "I accept the contract that was attached to your email dated December 27 2014" that would suffice.  
    Some of you have gotten "retainer agreements" from me before I will do any legal services for you.  You may have noticed that when I keep it simple I put the retainer right on my email.  I ask that you confirm by Reply.  The Reply has always had the original email attached, and if it didn't I would probably follow up with additional confirmation [unless I get sloppy and dont].  Think like a litigator and ask you how does the sub get out of this contract and how clear is my agreement with this sub - clear enough to be enforced by a Judge or confusing in both execution and content?
*********************
COMMENT ON ALARM ASSOCIATIONS
*********************
Ken, 
    re the Nov 19 article
    I respect Roy's comments and would like to point out that we also must follow existing laws and State Constitutions when directing public policy. For instance, when the cities pass licensing laws in direct conflict with State Statute, we must stop this, not encourage it. When cities pass alarm permit fees on home alarms, in direct conflict with State Constitutions, we must stop this from occurring, not encourage it. When cities require alarm business to submit client information, without a warrant, we must stop this. When cities engage in selling a police response, a service that citizens already paid for in the form of taxation, this is also something we, as law abiding citizens, should be opposing. When bringing forth an increase in State Licensing, we should also be following State laws regarding the increasing of regulations on businesses within that State. So, I say Roy is right when he says more people need to get involved. For instance, the Arizona Alarm Association has about 30 licensed contractors as members and there are currently over 4,000 licensed contractors in Arizona, which are legally licensed to contract alarms. This hardly portrays a true representation of the alarm industry to have such a limited representation of such a large industry. Maybe reducing the membership fees required by these associations would allow all to participate and bring forth a larger membership? Our association, the Arizona Alarm Dealers Association, no longer charges any membership fees and now is approaching 200 members, all licensed contractors and no Police Departments can be members. 
Thank You, 
Roger D. Score, President
Arizona Alarm Dealers Association
*************************
COMMENT:DEKALB CO., GA ALARM ORDINANCE - FALSE ALARM FINES FROM NOV 20, 2014
*************************
Ken 
    In reference to DeKalb County, I would suggest challenging any branch of Government forcing me to provide them information without a court order. We had Cities in Arizona doing this, but they never enforced the issue. To resolve it, we had legislation passed specifically stating that no city or county could demand information without a court order. Cities and Counties will pass ordinances that conflict with State preemption. They can and will take advantage of you, as long as they do not take any action against you. 
Georgia Constitution: 
Paragraph XIII. Searches, seizures, and warrants. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated; and no warrant shall issue except upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation particularly describing the place or places to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.
Thanks, 
Roger D. Score, President
Arizona Alarm Dealers Association
************************
RESPONSE
************************
    Roger, keep up the good fight
************************