People's Court - 8 3 2012 - Friday

The Blue Collar Is Faded!

Ceasia is suing the cleaners for the cost of clothing that she claims they ruined. The clothes were all Ralph Lauren, purchased for a polo party. She has not brought any of the items with her. This is Ceasia's day in court, this is when she should bring the evidence for her case. Because of this oversight, her lawsuit is reduced from $369.50 to $150.00. Dulce is representing the cleaners. She admits that the items brought in, a sweater, a tshirt and the polo shirt were damaged. She fixed the sweater and the tshirt and Ceasia accepted them. The polo shirt is the problem. The blue collar was faded. Dulce explains that the shirt is not going to look brand new after being worn and cleaned. Dulce had offered $60.00 when she was told the shirt was damaged. When she saw the receipt, Dulce said that was too much money. She was not going to pay for it. Ceasia's boyfriend thought Dulce was being disrespectful and he called the police. Why would someone call the police over a polo shirt and disrespect? He explains that he felt he needed to call the police before Dulce called them. I think he should have left the store and then decide how to proceed. I do not think the police need to use their resources responding to someone who is upset over a faded collar. Ceasia's boyfriend wanted it on the record that he was not satisfied with the dry cleaners. Okay, now we get to see the polo shirt. Dulce has brought it with her. The Judge examines the polo shirt and is struggling to see the problems. Looking at the shirt, the Judge says she would have liked to see the other items. It is a shame they are not available for her to look at. Ceasia forgot them. Ceasia's boyfriend says they were damaged, repaired and now the fabric is ruined. Unfortunately, there is no way to confirm this. Ceasia loses the case. In the hallway, her boyfriend says he is going to donate the shirt. Having high expectations is not a bad thing, but we all need to be realistic. Once an item of clothing is worn and cleaned, it will never look brand new. What do you think?

I Am Selling You A Free Boat! 

Marc is suing Bill for $500.00. Bill is counterclaiming for $500.00. Marc has a case, Bill does not. Marc was going to buy a fishing boat from Bill's good friend. He gave Bill a $200.00 deposit, a battery and $100.00 for his time. Marc believes Bill is acting as a broker for the sale. Bill admits he received the $200.00 and the battery from Marc. He said he returned the battery, he even took a picture of where he left the battery. Bill shows the picture of the battery left outside of Marc's garage. Why leave something outside when no one is home? How do you know they are going to get it? Marc says the battery was not left for him. The Judge does not believe him. The bigger issue here is the fact of boat ownership. Marc takes his friend, Robert, to see the boat. Robert is going to go in on the purchase of the boat. When the two men are looking at the boat, someone tells them it is great they are removing the boat from the property. The two men also find out that the boat is being given away for free. This causes a tense moment between the two men, since Robert was going to give Marc money towards buying the boat. You do not have to purchase a free boat. Bill has so much to explain. He was getting the boat for free and was selling it to Marc. He did not tell Marc any of this. Marc thought he was buying the boat from a friend of Bill's. Bill did not remove the boat from the owner's property, he did not transfer the title to his name. Is Bill really the owner of the boat? Can Bill sell the boat? No, he cannot because he does not own the boat. Marc has a letter from Bob, the owner of the boat. In the letter, Bob calls Bill a scamster. Bill says there is no proof the letter is legitimate. He says Bob is his friend and he did not write this letter. The Judge wants to call Bob. Bill should have his phone number since they are friends. Bills says this is a new cell phone and he has Bob's phone number in his rolodex. Do people still use a rolodex for phone numbers? Now, Bill shows a letter that Marc sent to his ex-wife. Bill claims this letter caused tension  between himself and his wife, oops! his ex-wife. He said they are divorced, but live in the same house for financial reasons. This tension is the reason for the counterclaim. He is not able to prove that any tension caused by this letter would be worth any amount of money. On top of that, he needs to pay Marc back the $200.00. Bill denies receiving the extra $100.00, so Marc does not get this money back. Marc did not breach a contract of sale, since Bill was not the actual owner of the boat. Bill had no right to sell a boat that did not belong to him. Beware of deals that are too good to be true! Also, get receipts when money changes hands!

My Diamond Ring is Missing - I Know Who Stole It!

Marita hired David's moving company and is now suing him for $5000.00. This is the value of a ring that was missing after the move. David gave her an estimate of $1600.00 for the move, the actual cost was almost double. The Judge says this is normal for the industry. David tries to defend this practice. The Judge says it is not necessary. This is not an issue, since the case is about a missing ring. Marita claims her diamond ring was missing after the move. She packed her jewelry box and the movers put it into her car. Marita remembers that she carried the box into her house and put it in her bedroom. Initially, she has problems with the movers because they scratched the the floors in her new home. It was beneficial for Marita that she purchased insurance for the move. She put in a claim for the scratched floors and was paid. Ten days after the move, Marita notices her diamond ring is missing. Where can it be? Of course it has to be the movers! I do not understand why Marita is so quick to jump to this conclusion. She says they are the only ones who had access to her bedroom. She did not see anyone actually take the ring. She has no proof. Marita contacted David, he suggested she file a police report and submit to insurance. When the claim was denied by the insurance company, Marita decided to sue David's company. David says that he has never had a problem with theft in the past. His employees have been with him for many years. He has complete trust in his employees. Marita loses her case. In the hallway, Marita says she does not understand why she bought insurance. David says he would like to change the image of moving companies, he is a nice guy! I have a feeling the ring is going to show up, I do not think the movers took it. What do you think?

Please share your thoughts in the comments. Thank you for joining me.

Remember being a success without happiness is meaningless.

-Richard Denny

People's Court: 7-6-12 ***** A Horse ***** A Theft ** A Rude Plaintiff

Everyday situations present us with unique challenges. We find ourselves dealing with new problems all the time.  In working to resolve these issues people need to behave with integrity. Are they trying to right a wrong or find a bonanza? When these stories wind up in the courtroom, the resolution is fair.

Marion needed to transport a horse to a competition for her granddaughter. The transport company is owned by Chip. When the trailer was opened at the competition, the horse was lying down. The horse was injured during the trip. As soon as Marion learns the horse cannot compete, she finds another horse. Her granddaughter was able to successfully compete. Why are we in court? Marion wants Chip to pay for all of the expenses for both horses, the injured horse and the replacement horse, transport fees and competition fees. She does not have a clear answer when she is asked to explain why Chip should have to pay for the expenses of both horses. Why should she get a bonanza? She is only entitled to the money she can prove she lost because of the negligence of Chip's company. Why should her granddaughter get  a free ride? She feels that Chip's company was negligent while securing the horse in the trailer.  In order to prove this, she needs to have evidence. She has her husband tell the court that a horse would never lay down in a horse trailer. He should know he has transported horses for 15 years. This is not evidence. Now, Chip's daughter explains she has been doing this for years and it can happen. It may not be common, but she has seen horses lay down in the trailer. Chip explains that the chain is left loose, so if the horse does lay down, their neck is not broken. Since Marion cannot prove her case, she does not win.  To Marion's surprise, Chip has countersued for 2 additional transports. Even though Marion was unhappy with him in August, she used his company in October and November. On these two occasions, she did not pay him. She claims she had to use his service since the horse farm only contracts with his company. They did not switch companies when the horse was injured. She was not able to pay because she fell on hard times. She did not make any attempt to make payments on the bill. The court finds that Marion is responsible to pay Chip for the services provided. It makes you wonder if Chip would have brought her to court on his own or if he just took this opportunity to countersue?  Why would Marion think she did not have to pay for any of the services she received? What do you think? For those that are wondering, the horse sustained scrapes to her leg and one of her back legs was swollen.

Christian and Nicole rented an apartment together. They both signed the lease and they shared expenses. Christian is suing Nicole for $2000.00. This amount is for a loan, rent and money that was stolen. Christian had a promissory note signed for the loan, but was unable to find it for court. The rent was from December, that was deferred to January as a birthday gift. Nicole moved out suddenly in January and did not pay the rent for December or January. There was money missing from Christian's room. She is convinced Nicole stole it. Knowing that Christian dd not see Nicole steal the money or have any evidence to prove the theft makes you think she is not going to win this portion of the case. Well, Nicole starts to lie about everything. The answers she gives the Judge contradict the written answers she provided to the court. She does deny that she stole the money. Unfortunately, since she lies about the rent and the loan, she shows her true character. Once someone lies in court, nothing they say can be believed. Christian wins the case, but is very sad to have lost her girlfriend.

Konstantine's car was damaged in an accident. He made the decision to pay for the repair himself and not go through the insurance company. He takes his car to Nakhman's repair shop. After the repairs were done he claims he returned many times since there were still problems with the car. He does not have any documentation for the return visits. According to the owner of the shop, he picked the car up in June and did not complain until October. We also learn he recommended the shop to his uncle. How unhappy was he if he sent his uncle to the shop? Konstantine has paperwork that he generated and had a mechanic sign. It listed old parts that were used for repair and repairs that were not done or done incorrectly. This paperwork was not created by the mechanic. It did not serve as true evidence. The Judge tries to get more information from Konstantine. On several occasions, he talks over her. This is so rude. When he loses, he says it was fun to give Nakhman stress and waste his time in court. It is a shame Konstantine did not take this case more seriously. If he would have paid attention, he might have learned something. 

Please share your thoughts in the comments below. Thank you for joining me today.

Everything is okay in the end, if it's not okay, it's not the end.

- Unknown

Submit your favorite quotes and sayings to be included in future blogs!