I would like to take extreme exception to the recent comments by Bruce Chapin on May 11 2016.
    We are not talking about VIOLATING UL, UL does not write code, they are only an RTL and as such create listings of equipment, performance and interconnectability.
    We are talking about installing a SYSTEM that is not listed to interact. with each other. Smoke alarms with and without relay were never intended to work with a fire alarm SYSTEM.
    To install a RELAY and tell a customer that they have a FIRE ALARM SYSTEM is almost criminal in my thinking. (Jeffery Zwirn should weigh in here).
    There is NO SUPERVISION OF POWER.  If the smoke alarm loses power nobody knows if it has a low battery since the panel does not supervise or report.  If there is a loss and you are sued you will have to produce documentation that permits the interconnection.
    Does the panel manufacturer acknowledge that this is a proper application of the technology?  We go to the trouble of making sure that the equipment we install is all listed and accepted as proper by a RTL.
    In short I was always taught that in fire, the equipment you install must be listed FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH YOU ARE INSTALLING IT.
    I rest my case, SMOKE ALARMS are for code compliance, SMOKE DETECTORS create life safety......
Joel Kent
FBN  Security
    Regarding Bruce Chapin's comment on May 11 2016:
    My understanding, and I called up the manufacturer, was that their relay is not UL listed for the purpose of fire alarm monitoring.  They read a statement to me in that regard.  My understanding was that it is UL for other purposes and not fire detection nor alarm.  Also, what about the liability in the event they are not wired properly or if the circuit they are connected to is tripped or shut off?  And what about when the devices are past the date they need to be replaced by the manufacturer? 
Jason Etter
AVX Integrated Technologies, Inc
    We acquired a company that had been using your All in One contracts.  One of the customers, a large school district, canceled midway into a yearly renewal term.  When we contacted the customer to make good on the remainder of the contract they informed us that their attorney said that automation renewal contracts are not legal in Colorado?   Can you comment on this.  I have never heard of this before.
    Thank you for all your very informative articles.
    I am not aware of a Colorado statute that prohibits automatic renewal in alarm contracts.  However, your subscriber is a school district, a governmental agency.  There are often statutes that prohibit governmental agencies from entering into contracts that run longer than one year.  The justification for this is usually budget considerations, since budgets are generally done annually.  That may be what this school district's attorney was thinking about, assuming there is any restriction.  
    The alarm company you purchased must have altered the All in One after getting it from me because our Standard Form All in One Agreements provide for month to month renewal.  We design the Standard Form that way in case there is an existing statute prohibiting or conditioning automatic renewal, or such statute gets enacted in the future.  Every statute prohibiting or conditioning automatic renewal provisions excepts month to month.
    You are of course free to continue using the Standard Forms you purchased, but you should update to the new forms for your new business and renewal business.  You can find these forms at www.alarmcontracts.com.