We Are Here Over $9.00!
Susan took her Dad's car to Rohon's auto repair shop. She needed tires and was having problems with the fan belt. Rohon operates out of a storefront in Brooklyn. He does not have a yard, his customers have to park on the street. The alternate side of the street parking rules are in effect in this area.There is much talk about double parking, and it being tolerated. Double parking is not legal, it is essential leaving your car in the middle of the street. Susan drops off the car before work, goes into the shop and tells Rohon where the car is parked. She is planning to pick the car up the next day. Unfortunately, her car was not moved in a timely manner and she received a ticket and was towed. She wants Rohon to be responsible for these costs. The funny thing is, he is willing to take care of her repairs for free. This would appear to be a sense of responsibility on his part for the ticket and the tow. The tow ticket shows that the car was still on the street two hours after Susan dropped it off. Rohon should have moved it soon after she left it and none of this would have happened. Offering to do the repairs for free seems to be a reasonable offer. What goes wrong? He asks Susan to pay a $9.00 environmental fee. She refuses and sues him for the cost of the ticket and the tow. Why doesn't she accept his offer? She said he was rude to her and the offer was not enough. Also,her car was never fixed! Why do people get caught up in these situations? For a person like Susan who appears to be very busy, why take the time to come to court? It is always about the principle. It is never about the money. For $9.00, this would have been over, she would have remained a customer and would not have to look for a new mechanic. Rohon is not upset about losing a customer, he feels it is her loss, she is losing a great mechanic. As far as the outcome of the case, they are found equally responsible and split a $300.00 verdict. Susan should have accepted Rohon's initial offer and saved everyone major headaches!
You Killed My Trees!
Edward is suing Thomas for the removal and replacement of 5 trees. Edward is convinced the snow that was pushed against the trees killed them. Thomas admits when he plowed snow at the neighbor's house, he pushed the snow onto Edward's property during one year. Several years went by and Edward says that Thomas is responsible to remove and replace the trees. He has brought evidence. He has some pictures of trees with broken branches. He has also brought an estimate to have the trees removed and replaced. He does not have a letter from an expert explaining the condition of the trees. Thomas is counterclaiming for the cost of research and preparation for court. It is true there has been a lot of snow this past winter. Thomas says that after he was asked to stop plowing the snow toward's Edward's property, he stopped. He was not responsible for the snow accumulating against the trees. Can snow build-up next to trees damage and kill them? Wouldn't there be many more dead trees after a bad winter? Edward does not have enough evidence to prove his case. The pictures do not show who is responsible for the damage to the branches. Broken branches do not cause trees to die. If a snowplow hit the tree, that would be a different story. That did not happen. Why would Edward waste everyone's time and resources when he does not have any proof? Why didn't he videotape the damage being done? Why didn't he call the police? This is always the best way to document an injustice. Edward cannot prove his case, he does not win. Thomas has a video of the trees on Edward's property. He identifies the type of trees and show some damage they have sustained. He says this damage could have happened in any storm. He cannot prove his counterclaim. Both men lose their cases. Hopefully. both men have learned something, so it is not a total waste of time. It is really important to have documentation when you want to prove something.
We Have A Leak - Please Fix It!
Daryl is suing Julio and Tom for back rent and utility bills. They rented a laundromat from her. They were already renting another store in the same strip mall. They saw an opportunity for another business. I give them credit for wanting to have another business. Unfortunately, they did not do their homework. The laundromat was not a booming business. They also had problems with a leaking roof. They claimed they called Daryl to let her know and she did not look into the problem. Daryl said she went to the store and the doors were locked. When she contacted Julio and Tom, they said they shut down. In February, the leak was worse and now there was snow and ice built up on the roof. When she finally has a contractor evaluate the problem, the condition of the leak had gotten really bad. The laundromat has been closed for business, so the landlord did not feel an sense of urgency to repair it. The two men had signed a 6 month lease, so they need to abide by the terms of the contract. They do have to pay the utilities and the majority of the rent. The Judge reduces the amount of the rent because of the condition caused by the leak. They are responsible to pay the landlord $2000.00 for the utilities and a portion of the rent. What could Julio and Tom done differently? They could have documented contact with landlord regarding the leak. What could the landlord have done differently? She could have treated Julio and Tom with more respect. Especially since they were already tenants and she had a working relationship with them. People need to treat each other better and communicate when they have problems.
Please share your thoughts in the comments. Thank you for joining me.
A life without dreams is like a garden without flowers.
-Unknown
No comments:
Post a Comment