This HTML5 document contains 9 embedded RDF statements represented using HTML+Microdata notation.

The embedded RDF content will be recognized by any processor of HTML5 Microdata.

Namespace Prefixes

PrefixIRI
n6http://www.openvoc.eu/poi#
schemahttp://schema.org/
rdfhttp://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#
n2http://data.yelp.com/Review/id/
n5http://data.yelp.com/Business/id/
revhttp://purl.org/stuff/rev#
xsdhhttp://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
n7http://data.yelp.com/User/id/

Statements

Subject Item
n2:Z6kr-aLhR_pJ75DK8fqKuQ
rdf:type
rev:Review
schema:dateCreated
2016-06-21T00:00:00
schema:itemReviewed
n5:IjpnjGICk07ywRMzs9Uu7Q
n6:funnyReviews
0
rev:rating
1
n6:usefulReviews
6
rev:text
I bought my house in September of 2015. The old owner had language in the home sale paperwork that required me to take on the home security contract that he had already signed up for, which was no big deal and I was happy to do it. I called today to try and have my service canceled starting September of 2016, only to be informed I was locked into a NEW 3 year contract, from my initial date of September 2015. The security system was already installed, they didn't have to do anything besides TRANSFER the contract, however they swindled me into signing a NEW contract. Never once did the sales associate verbally explain the terms or the length of the servicing agreement. Yes, I should have read the fine print. Yes, I should have confirmed there was not a new multi-year contract. None the less, there is something to be said for a company that would rather slip something past you, besides being upfront an honest with you. This is not the way an honest company does honest business. They may legally be in the right and I understand the need for them to recoup their costs (which I am 100% behind and agree with), but when you strategically sign someone up for a new multi-year contract, instead of just having them takeover the current contract, that is just unethical.
n6:coolReviews
0
rev:reviewer
n7:VaGOMkzVH84vseWhNgpkJw