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: 7-23-12

I Want A Perfect Copy!

Melissa and Adam purchased a designer engagement ring for $6000.00. They took this ring to Dana and Ira's jewelry store to have it copied. They asked if it could be done and the answer was, yes. It would cost them $1712.00. This is a major savings over the designer ring. Melissa was not happy with the copy. After Adam proposed to her, she called the store and wanted changes to the ring. She finally brought the ring into the store in December, 2 months after the proposal. She did not want to leave the ring. Months later, Melissa brings the ring back to the store. She requested several specific changes: four diamonds needed to be changed, one of the prongs needed to be straightened and to even a little bit on the top. When Melissa and Adam returned to the store 3 weeks later, nothing had been done. Adam was very frustrated and voiced his concern about the lack of  repairs. Ira thought he had too much attitude and kicked him out of his store. So many times it is attitude that causes these cases to wind up in court. If everyone could communicate calmly, these issues could be resolved without a lawsuit. Now, Ira will not have a chance to make the repairs he acknowledged. He has to return Melissa and Adam's money. Dana feels that Melissa would never have been satisfied. Even though she won the case, she had to throw a nasty parting remark to Melissa, calling her a bridezilla. This comment was not necessary. The good news is that Melissa and Adam did get other rings for their wedding and will now live happily ever after.

Easy Life!

Eva is suing Kenneth for $2000.00. Eva was visiting her mother's house the weekend before Memorial Day. She noticed the neighbor, Kenneth, was having work done at his house. Kenneth's house is directly behind her mom's house. They each have a backyard fence, with about twelve inches between the fences. Eva noticed the contractor looking at the space between the two fences. She told him not to throw anything between the fences. He told her to talk to the owner. She did not talk to him. She said she had never met him and did not take the time to talk to him. The next day, the contractor gives her a thumbs up. She takes this to mean that he is not going to put anything between the fences. How nice this would have been! Now, she shares the story with her 78 year old mom. The next day, her mom is gardening in the backyard and notices the fence is bulging. There is concrete debris and sand between the fences. Eva looks at this and knows it was not there the day before. She talks to Kenneth and his response is that he does not understand why there is sand. Really! His contractor was doing concrete work, sand is used to mix it. He has to know this. He has his contractor come back and tell Eva's mom that he did not put anything there. Eva's mom says to her, easy life! What does this mean? It means that it was just easier for them to throw the concrete and sand between the fences. Well, they might have taken the easy way out and thought they would get away with it. Kenneth is found responsible for the clean-up. Eva has an estimate for $2,000.00. She explains why it is going to be so expensive. The Judge is satisfied and Eva is awarded the money. 

                                                            All In The Family!

Emanuel is suing Julie for $1000.00. Julie is the mother of his ex-girlfriend. He sold Julie a used car for $2000.00. They had a written contract. He did put in writing that the car needed certain repairs and he also was providing specific parts. Julie claims he also promised to do the repairs for her. These promises were not in writing. This gets to be a problem. When there is a written signed contract, that is where all the promises should be. If someone says something, add it to the contract. Julie is not happy with the deal and is counterclaiming for repair costs and pain and suffering. She does not want to pay the $1000.00 balance and wants him to pay her. This entire case revolves around the signed written contract. Since it was good enough for Julie to sign, the Judge does not find fault with it. She rules for Emanuel, Julie needs to pay the balance. She is not entitled to her counterclaim. Now, we come to the big question, why on earth would Julie buy a used car from the ex-boyfriend of her daughter? Why did either of them feel this was a good idea? Would you buy a used car from a family member or someone that you know?

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

 I have found that if you love life, life will love you back - Arthur Rubinstein.