********************

Question: Is it necessary to subscribe to electronic signature service?

**********************

Ken,

Is it necessary to subscribe to signature service to have a legally binding electronic document?

On the all in one we have some areas that are covered that we don't engage in, can we simply delete the area/paragraph and send back to you guys to reformat?  If so what will the cost be or can we just proceed with it?  Thanks

Best Regards,

Sammy Falletta, General Manager

Builder Security Group

San Antonio, TX 

*******************

Answer

*******************

You dont need one of the electronic signature services, though I suppose it makes it a lot easier.  You can establish a contract with any reliable confirmation, such as email confirmation that the contract and its terms are acceptable.  I'd like to hear from the electronic signature services on this issue - at least one of them should be posted on The Alarm Exchange - send in the post.

*******************

Question re UCC

******************

Ken,

A company I work with recently purchased your all in one contract for residential, there is a UCC form in the packet, what is the purpose?

Sammy Falletta

*******************

Answer

*******************

Filing the UCC will turn you from unsecured creditor to secured creditor.  There are lots of articles on my web site on the UCC issue.  You can access them here https://www.kirschenbaumesq.com/page/alarm-articles

Once on the site use your search and find feature under Edit to find the UCC articles.

*******************

more on AZ license

*******************

Ken

Thanks for posting the clarification on Arizona's new licensing law. Arizona's new licensing law contained no grandfather clause. This poses the question, "Does Arizona's BTR licensing requirement violate Ex Post Facto Contract Clause?" Existing alarm companies have many existing contract obligations with clients to contracts with monitoring stations, phone line providers, to employees, etc. 

 

For the State of Arizona to demand that all existing alarm businesses fire all their employees who fail a back ground check, would require employers who legally hired employees, trained employees, to then sacrifice company's investment in training such employees and then to pay unemployment on those employees. Also, what about the employee who is let go due to a crime he committed 10 years ago? For instance, if an employee committed a crime 10 years ago, has now spent 8 years learning a new career and has done nothing wrong since, is the State of Arizona going to wipe out his career Ex Post Facto? What if instead of an employee, an alarm business owner failed the background check? What if a business owner had a prior mark on his record and had to close his business that he had legally built up over the past 10 years? What happens to all the contractual obligations this alarm business has engaged in? Is the business relieved of such obligation? Does the person/company engaged in a contract with such alarm business have an Ex Post Facto law suit against the State of Arizona also?

 

A lot of questions will remain to be answered in reference to Arizona's BTR licensing. Ex Post Facto is a United States Constitutional protection against State Legislators from imposing laws that interfere with existing contracts, or laws punishing citizens for crimes committed prior to the law becoming law. 

 

As not to suggest disregarding the new BTR licensing law, I would suggest reviewing this matter with your attorney prior to submitting your company and employees to another Board licensing. 

 

Roger D. Score,  President

Arizona Alarm Dealers Association, non profit

arizonaalarmdealers.org

*********************

more on Bart

********************

Hi Ken:

I read, with mild amusement, Bart Didden’s latest response. How this turned into a debate solely between Bart and me is beyond me.  However, that being said, I don’t think Bart should resort to personalities and “self-serving” comments.  By his own admission, Bart is a politician. We all know about politicians and their own self-serving and self-validating propoganda.  I would enjoy being on a panel with Bart.  After all, we do agree on more points than we disagree on.  And most importantly, we are both arguing for the advancement and protection of our industry.  I think we are actually on the same side, although with some differences on how to achieve the end goal.

Mitch Cohen

Bric Security

*******************

Response

*******************

Mud slinging sells papers.  You and Bart need a few topics.  I may include Dusan on that panel to keep you both in line.


**************************