Alarm contracts contain numerous provisions which when read by a subscriber
and even legal professionals unfamiliar with alarm law may appear to
contain onerous provisions; Onerous from the perspective of the subscriber.
When litigation arises one of the attacks against the contract is that it
is unenforceable. While various grounds supporting that position are
typical, one of the common issues is that the contract is one of adhesion.
What precisely does this mean?
Arguing that a contract is one of adhesion a subscriber would claim that
the contract is a standardized form; that the contract was preprinted and
that the alarm company would not make changes. Along with that would be a
claim that the parties had unequal bargaining power.
What is the consequence of a finding that the contract is one of adhesion?
Surprisingly that finding alone does not render the contract unenforceable.
The finding that a contract is one of adhesion is only the first step in
determining its enforceability There must also be a determination that the
terms of which the party claiming adhesion was unaware at the time of
signing the contract are beyond the reasonable expectations of an ordinary
person or are oppressive or unconscionable.
This standard of review when applied to alarm contracts routinely results
in enforcement. Though novel 25 years ago, typical provisions in an alarm
contract have received judicial review in almost all states, and
enforcement is expected.
Thus contracts with the exculpatory clause, limitation of liability
provision, liquidated damages, indemnity clauses, are routinely enforced.
You would be foolish to conduct business without a well drafted and time
tested contract, and that is the case for sales, monitoring, service of all
types of alarm and security equipment.