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.