My Cat Almost Died!
Jill is suing Juan for $5000.00. Juan owns a pest control company. Jill received a lovely gift from one of her cats. He left a mouse on her pillow. Jill called Juan to take care of the problem. She had a contract with his company for termite control. Jill said she told Juan what the problem was and left the doors unlocked for him. About one month later, one of her two cats started to act lethargic. Jill's daughter took the cat to the vet. She brought him home with instructions to give him the prescribed medicine. The next day, the cat was worse. Jill rushed him to critical care. He was being poisoned by a rodenticide, a poison used to kill the mice. Jill found bags of poison in the basement. These bags have instructions on them to keep out of reach of children or animals. Juan claims these bags were used years before when the basement was separated by a wall. He used a different type of pest control for this occurrence, because he did not want the cats to have access to the poison. Juan says he used bait boxes in the basement. He claims the cat got sick from eating a mouse that ate the poison. So either type of approach would have caused the cat to get sick. Jill did not mention finding bait boxes in the basement. It is very clear from the cat food and the litter boxes, the cats spent a lot of time in the basement. The Judge finds that Jill can not prove her case. There is no proof of when the bags of poison were put in the basement. There is no proof of how the cat ingested the poison. For these reasons, Juan is not responsible to pay the vet bills. The good news - the cat survived and is enjoying life. In the hallway, Jill said she is happy that her cat is fine. Juan said he would have done it differently if he knew there were cats in the house. Wait a minute...Juan knew there were cats in the house. Jill told him her cat brought her the mouse, also the cat food and litter box were in the basement. What would he have done differently? Maybe he wouldn't have used poison at all. There are other ways to remove mice from a home without using poison. Hopefully, Juan will approach his job with a more humane approach towards the animal residents of a house. What do you think?
I Want My Guccis!
Samuel has been going to Ed's optical shop for many years. This most recent visit was not a happy one. Samuel had his eye exam and had his lenses upgraded. At this same visit, Samuel asked Ed to adjust his sunglasses. When Ed worked on the adjustment, he broke the temple (arm) of the Gucci sunglasses. Ed tried to locate a replacement arm, but could not. The frames were six years old. Samuel wanted replacement frames. He says that Ed has many Gucci frames in the store. Ed did replace the frames with a comparable frame. The frames were not the Gucci brand, just comparable in shape and color. Ed explains there are signs in the store explaining the store is not responsible when customers provide their own frames. He says that Samuel routinely brings his own frames. Samuel returned to the store two weeks later, and demanded replacement Gucci frames. The manager spoke to him in the back room since Samuel was being very disruptive. He was offered a solution and left the store, only to file a lawsuit. Samuel says there is a gap between the lense and the frame where light comes through. The Judge agrees with him after examining the sunglasses. The solution to this problem is that Ed is found responsible to pay the depreciated value of the six year old Gucci sunglasses. This amounts to $255.00. Samuel is suing for $5000.00. The rest of the money is for pain and suffering. Samuel is not able to prove that he had pain or that he suffered by not being able to wear Gucci sunglasses. In the hallway, he says that if he had walked into a train because he could not see, there would have been pain and suffering. He also says that he likes Ed's store and he will definitely go back. Oh lucky day for Ed!
Never Lie To the Judge!
James, a photographer. is suing Jim, for copyright infringement. James has a verbal agreement with the owner of a nightclub. One night a week he took pictures for the nightclub's Facebook page. He was paid $50.00 for the one night a week. The nightclub is out of business. James does not have any proof from the owner about the agreement they had. Jim has a website that promotes local businesses. The nightclub is listed as an out of business venue. Pictures from the nightclub are still available on this site. James believes Jim is selling the pictures and is making money from his work. Jim explains that a third party actually sells the pictures. Jim also says that he made $38.00 in commissions from the sale of the pictures. None of the pictures that were purchased were James's pictures from the now closed nightclub. Now, it is time for James to show proof of his copyright. He hands the Judge a paper when she asks if he has a copyright on the pictures. He says yes, but he does not have a copyright. Why did he lie in court? He says his attorney says he does not need a copyright in order to sue. Yet, he is suing based on copyright infringement. It is a shame that James received such bad advice. Yet, it was his choice to lie to the Judge. It is always better to be honest. Remember - honesty is the best policy. James does not prove his case, he does not get $5000.00. In the hallway, James says he will now get the copyright and sue again. Jim says that James is suing him personally and should have sued the company. Hopefully, James will not sue Jim again. It is time to move on. What do you think?
Please share your thoughts in the comments. Thank you for joining me.
Sometimes all you can do is walk away, hide your tears, and pretend you're okay.
-Unknown
No comments:
Post a Comment