Showing posts with label act of god. Show all posts
Showing posts with label act of god. Show all posts

Monday, January 21, 2013

People's Court Blog - 1 3 2013 - Thursday

It is time to play catch-up! Here are the cases from January 3, 2013:

Joseph and John are suing Benjamin and his business for $2903.50. 
This includes the cost of a 1986 motorcycle, pain and suffering, mileage and tow costs. When they bought the motorcycle from Benjamin they received a 30 day warranty. Benjamin calls it a guarantee. What is the difference? Benjamin does not know what the difference is and he is the one who gave it!!! 10-12 days after buying the motorcycle, it would not start. When they called Benjamin, he said it would cost $300 to diagnose the problem. This is not the way a warranty or guarantee works. Benjamin claims they wanted to modify the bike, when they were looking to replace the chain and the sprocket. Most of what Benjamin says in response to questions does not make any sense. 

Benjamin needs to learn to sell the motorcycles as-is, if he is not going to honor a warranty or guarantee. He claims he does not run a business, he works out of his garage. He also needs to learn how to speak in court - he called Douglas, pal! That is not proper! 

The good news for Joseph and John is that they win the case. They do not get pain and suffering, it is a contract case! They do get back $1653.50. They are satisfied with the outcome. 

Buying a vehicle, car or motorcycle requires two important steps. One is a test drive, the other is having a mechanic look at the vehicle. Joseph and John did neither. They are very lucky that Benjamin gave them a warranty (guarantee) and breached the contract. Otherwise, they might have been stuck with the purchase of the 1986 motorcycle.

Iris is suing Louis and the Realty Corporation for $2000.00.
Iris wants her security deposit back. Louis, a realty broker showed her an apartment in mid April. She signed a lease and gave Louis $2000.00 out of the $3000.00 required. She could not get the additional money and let Louis know she was trying to get it. Then she called Louis and let him know she was not going to take the apartment. He had given $800.00 to the landlord and kept $1200.00 for his fee. 

Neither party has any paperwork to show the Judge. Iris claims the paperwork stated only $50.00 was non-refundable. Unfortunately, she does not have the paperwork. Louis should have proof, but no, he does not have it either!
How can people come to court so unprepared?

Why would Iris think she should get back her money? She held up the apartment from being rented to someone else. There is a cost to changing your mind! Iris does not get her money back and Louis actually received a brokers fee twice for the rental of the apartment. He does not seem very trustworthy, but he is entitled to the fee. 

People need to realize there are consequences to their actions. You cannot make a decision and not know it does not have an impact. When you put a deposit on an apartment, no one else can rent it. If you do not go through with the deal, then the landlord has lost the opportunity to rent it to someone else. I hope Iris has learned from this experience, it was a very expensive lesson!

Rachel sues Levy for $1643.54.
Rachel lives next to Levy's rental property. After a very severe windstorm, debris from Levy's roof landed on Rachel's car. She took the debris off the car and went to work. When she had a chance to look at her car, she saw it was scratched. She got in touch with Levy to let him know about the damage. Once he found out the amount of the estimate, he said it was an act of God and he was not responsible for the damages. 

How is it that someone would agree that they are responsible until they find out the cost? Scratches on cars are expensive to repair.  Levy keeps saying he never saw the damages and it could have been a different car. Well, it was not a different car, Rachel has pictures! Also, Levy needs to repair his roof. The pictures of the roof show that it is not in very good shape.

Rachel wins the case and gets the amount for the lower estimate, which is $1335.02.

I do not understand why people do not take responsible for their own property. Even losing this case does not seem to enlighten Levy. In the hallway, he is still saying his roof is in good shape. Really!

Please share your thoughts in the comments. Thank you for joining me.
Stay Updated - Subscribe!




Sunday, August 12, 2012

People's Court - 8 10 2012 - Friday

I Want My Money Back Now!
Diane and Constance were good friends. Once again, money gets in the way of a friendship. When are we going to learn that friendship and money do not mix? Diane is suing Constance for $390.00. Diane tries to explain how she came up with $390.00. There is money lent for a plane ticket, there was money given to return to a family member. It is somewhat convoluted how much money was lent and how much money was returned. No one has written anything down, no one has kept track of the money. Diane would lend her friend money and a portion of the money would be returned. Then she would lend her more money. Constance says they were such good friends they would lend each other money all the time. What went wrong? Diane wanted her money back and did not want to wait. Diane left several voicemail messages for Constance. They were not very nice messages. Since they were in a different language, the Judge gets help from someone in the gallery. The Judge swears in a fifteen year old, after he agrees to translate the voicemail messages. He explains that there is cursing and demands of the return of money. What is not included is the amount of money that is owed. Constance says she accidentally erased the message that mentioned the amount of the loan. This is very convenient. Constance said she returned $90.00. She said she gave a check to a friend to give to Diane. It is funny, Constance has not mentioned this in her written response to the complaint. Constance has not made any other attempt to pay the money back. Neither woman is very credible in their testimony. Considering how much money Diane said has been returned to her, the Judge awards her $270, not the $390.00, she is asking for. I am constantly amazed how people allow their friendships to be destroyed over money. Friends should not lend each other money. When money is involved, people seem to forget the value of their friendship. They also find it very easy to be cruel to each other.  It really is a shame that this friendship is over due to money. What do you think?

The Roof  Is Leaking- I Want My Money Back!
Tynesa is suing Donna for $200.00. Tynesa wanted to rent a house from Donna. They agreed to meet at the house on Friday. They met at the house and did a walkthrough. Tynesa signed a lease and gave Donna the money for the deposit to hold the house. This actually was a partial deposit. Tynesa was supposed to give the rest of the deposit in a few days. After Tynesa signed the lease, she changed her mind about the rental. Tynesa says it is because she saw the roof was leaking and the floors were unclean. Donna told Tynesa she would fix everything before she moved in. Tynesa says that Donna told her she would only fix what was required by HUD. This was a government subsidized rental. Tynesa's son has asthma and she did not want him to be exposed to mold. It is interesting she did not see any of these problems before she signed the lease. Tynesa asked Donna for the deposit back. When she refused to return it to her, Tynesa called the police. Tynesa said this all happened on Friday. Donna says this is not how it happened. They met on Friday and then again on Monday. She said Tynesa had called her on Monday to say she changed her mind and wanted her deposit back. Donna explained it was a nonrefundable deposit. She had a signed lease and was not going to return the money. Also, on Monday, Donna received a call from someone who wanted to rent the house. She went to the house and Tynesa was there with a man. Donna says they both demanded Tynesa's money back and were yelling at her. Donna called the police. Tynesa denies this. The Judge gives her a chance to change her testimony. She is adamant that she was there on Friday and not on Monday. The Judge calls a recess to contact the  police department. The Judge returns and now we find out that Tynesa lied. The police were called to the house on Monday. Donna does not have to give back the deposit. Why would Tynesa lie? Did she think it would really help her get her deposit money back? What do you think?

Hurricane Irene Strikes Again!
Sylvia is suing Tanya for $800.00. This is for a shed that was damaged during Hurricane Irene. A tree limb from one of Tanya's trees fell on the roof of the shed. When Sylvia saw the damage, she had her landscaper speak with Tanya. The landscaper was going to charge $75.00 or $80.00 (depends on who is telling the story) to remove it. Tanya said this was too expensive. The landscaper offered to take it off the shed and throw it in Tanya's yard for $20.00. Tanya declined this offer also. Sylvia and her son went over to talk to Tanya at a different time. Tanya said she would deal with it on Saturday. When it was not done on Saturday, Sylvia called her. Tanya said she would deal with it on Wednesday. It was not done by Wednesday, and it is still not done. Tanya explains that she called a tree removal service and they were backlogged because of the storm. There was some laughter on the courtroom, when the Judge thought she was saying a tree boo boo company. This really was cute. Tanya said she is still waiting for them to show up. Sylvia did not want to wait and filed this lawsuit. The kicker is that legally Tanya is not responsible to remove the limb from the shed. The tree was not dead, dying or diseased. The limb broke off the tree during the Hurricane and it is considered an act of God. Sylvia wants a new shed, although Tanya says that Sylvia said she did not care about the shed. Sylvia denies saying this. She wants Tanya to replace her shed. This is not going to happen because the Judge rules in favor of Tanya. It is unfortunate that Sylvia was not more patient. If she was, Tanya would have had the tree limb removed from the shed. In the hallway, Tanya says she is still going to have  the tree limb removed from the shed. Do you think she is really going to do this?

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

You are young at any age if you are planning for tomorrow.
-Unknown