Open Memo - To: At torney St ephanie S hinglet on Fro m:...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
To: Attorney Stephanie Shingleton From: Law Clerk Tres Steffey Date: November 13, 2006 RE: Mitchell v. Protect-U, File # 29351 Facts : In an effort to protect their home and their new-born child, the Mitchells made the decision to purchase a home alarm security system. In July 2006, the Mitchells saw an advertisement for Protect-U’s home alarm security system. The advertisement offered equipment for “as low as $300,” stated that customers may be eligible for a one year agreement, and promoted its products as “state of the art” technology. The Mitchells contacted Protect-U Alarm Systems to install a security system at their home. The alarm system was installed by John Messer on August 1, 2006, upon which time the Mitchells signed the contract and paid the $1000 installation fee and $20 first month’s service fee. During the installation process, Mr. Messer stated that the alarm system was “state of the art” and “full proof.” The Mitchells did not fully understand the words used in the contract such as “liability” and “waiver,” but they were assured by Mr. Messer that the alarm system would work. Mr. Messer also assured the Mitchells that Protect-U was a great company and it would stand by its product if anything ever went wrong. Mr. Messer then told the Mitchells to sign at the bottom and to “leave the fancy wording to the lawyers.” In the early morning of August 15, 2006, the Mitchells heard a strange noise in their home but went right back to sleep. When they woke up, Mrs. Mitchell’s jewelry box was out of place and she noticed several pieces of jewelry missing, including her wedding ring, engagement ring, and grandmother’s necklace. When the Mitchells attempted to turn on the lights, they did not work, and they noticed that the downstairs window was open and the screen was cut. The burglar dug a hole around the electrical connection and cut a wire that led to the alarm system. As a result, the alarm did not go off.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
The investigating police officer remarked that the system was basic and “hoped the Mitchells didn’t pay too much for it.” After the burglary, the Mitchells contacted their insurance company and were informed that their policy had lapsed. The Mitchells then contacted Protect-U, in a letter dated August 17, 2006, to request that they pay for the stolen jewelry. On August 20, 2006, Protect-U responded and denied any liability based on the contract the Mitchells signed on August 1, 2006. Protect-U based its denial on paragraph (3) of the contract, which states specifically that the Mitchells agreed to provide insurance under the contract and their failure to do so is not in compliance with the terms of the contract agreement. Also, under paragraph (4) of the contract, the Mitchells waived “any and all rights against the Company for any loss resulting from the use of these services.” Under paragraph (5) of the contract, Protect-U stated that “no representation has been made that the services and equipment cannot be
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/18/2008 for the course LP ??? taught by Professor Shingelton during the Fall '07 term at Florida Coastal School of Law.

Page1 / 8

Open Memo - To: At torney St ephanie S hinglet on Fro m:...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online