People's Court Blog - 1 16 2013 - Wednesday

Anthony is suing a Furniture Company for $2395.25.

Anthony purchased a leather sectional sofa and a cocktail table for $2395.25 two years ago. The sofa had a one year warranty. When the sofa began to fall apart, Anthony contacted the store. David, the manager offered to repair the problem but Anthony would have to pay for labor. Anthony did not like this solution and is suing for the entire purchase price. In court, David, the manager is explaining the sofa is bonded leather. This is not written on the receipt. On the receipt it only has the model no. of the sofa and does not even list the cost of the cocktail table. David explains that the sofa is not leather and is bonded leather. Except for describing bonded leather as including 17% leather, he does not give a clear description. Anthony thought he was purchasing a leather sofa. He shows pictures of the damage and it is so true that a picture is worth a thousand words. Anthony also brought pieces of the sofa to show how it is falling apart. 

The Judge takes a recess and when she returns reads a  description of bonded leather. According to the leather council this particular material is vinyl and not leather. The Judge finds in favor of Anthony and he receives $1900.00. The cocktail table was valued at $300.00. David needs to pick up the sofa as soon as possible.

It is unethical to advertise a product that is not truly leather and call it leather. It is not stated on any information or advertising from David's furniture store that they sell bonded leather. I am so glad Anthony pursued this and brought it to court. He deserves to get his money back. What do you think?

Susan is suing John's Home Improvement Company for $2163.33

Susan hired John's company to repair her roof. They gave her an estimate after looking at the damage. The damage to her roof was caused by a raccoon. The pictures of the damage are very impressive. Once again, a picture is worth a thousand words! The estimate was for $4000.00. Once they started the work, they realized the damage was much more extensive than they originally thought. It was not until they removed the gutter and the fascia, that they were able to see the extent of the damage. When they brought this to Susan's attention, she just wanted them to do the original work. She signed a document to waive the warranty, since she was not going to have the additional work done. The work was going to resume the next day.

After they left on the first day, Susan had a change of heart. She said she was not happy that no one spoke English. Also, she did not trust they were going to return to finish the job. She went to the bank to stop payment on her check, only to find out it was already cashed. She called to tell John not to come back the next day. 

Since Susan is the one to breach the contract, she does not get her deposit back. She had also included in the lawsuit the extra money she had to pay getting the work done by another company. She does not get this money either. If she did not cancel the job, she probably would have won the case if they did not return to finish the job. The problem is that she did not give them a chance to do the job. I do not understand why she acted this way and then to sue them, it does not make sense. What do you think?

Kelvin is suing Guiseppe and Risa for $271.56

Kelvin was driving past Guiseppe's house and the side window of his car shattered. Since Guiseppe was weedwhacking near the road, Kelvin felt that a stone broke the window. He stopped to talk to Guiseppe and also called the police. 

It is fairly straightforward for a civil case. The Judge explains that the proof only needs to be more likely than not. It makes sense that is could have happened that way. That a stone could have been thrown by the weedwhacker and broke the window. In this type of case, you never know for sure. Since it is more likely than not, Guiseppe and Risa are found responsible for the cost of the damage to the window. 

It is very important when working near the road to be aware of cars passing. Mowing or weedwhacking could cause a stone to be thrown toward the cars. Always stop and wait until the car passes. Also, be aware of cars parked in your own driveway. I know personally of a window being shattered when the lawnmower was operated too closely to a parked car. It is a very expensive mistake!

Thank you for joining me.

Please share your thoughts in the comments.

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

People's Court Blog - 8 24 2012 - Friday

The Door Was Already Broken!

Anthony is suing Kyle for $1380.00 ($1200.00 for the door, $180.00 for his time). Kyle is Anthony's daughter's former boyfriend. Anthony wants Kyle to pay the replacement cost of a patio sliding door. After Anthony's daughter and Kyle broke up, Kyle decided to come back to the house. He did not have a key, so he broke the sliding patio door to break in. Kyle claims it was already broken. It seemed when he was living there with Anthony's daughter, he used that way to get in when he was locked out. Kyle explains that there used to be a lockbox with a key, but that is not available anymore. It seemed Kyle did not have a key most of the time. Why did Anthony come back to the house after he moved out? There never is a clear answer. His girlfriend said it was for the furniture and then he changed his mind. Kyle said he needed dog food and while he was there he took his cigars and some documents. He also says that all of the furniture belongs to him. Also, he paid his share of the rent for 2 months after he left. Wow, not many people do something like that. He admits to having feelings for his girlfriend, but denies wanting to get back together. She hesitates when the Judge asks if she wants to get back together with him. They broke up because he was cheating on her and those are difficult wounds to heal. There is no doubt that Kyle broke the door, whether it was while he was living there or after he moved out. The timing does not really matter. It seems so sad, these two young people really do act like they still care for each other. They are very young and maybe just need more time. Kyle is found responsible to pay for the door, but not the cost of a new one. He would be responsible for the depreciated value of the door. The Judge estimates this to be $300.00. He has already made a payment of $100.00 to Anthony. In total, Kyle will pay $400.00 for a 30 year old sliding patio door. This seems acceptable to him, although Anthony is not happy about it. On the way out of the courtroom, they both express the desire to stay away from each other. That is a shame, they showed such promise!

My Car Was Impounded!

Myra was on her way to get her car inspected when she was in a car accident. Her car was towed to Anthony's auto repair shop. Myra is suing Anthony for $1128.86. After Myra got her car back from Anthony's shop, it was towed for unpaid parking tickets. Where did all of the parking tickets come from?  Anthony had Myra's car for several months due to insurance issues.  Anthony fixed the car without an appraisal and it took months for the insurance to pay. Since Anthony has limited storage space, he would park Myra's car on the road. The car was ticketed many times. Anthony blames Myra because her inspection sticker was expired. Myra was not able to get the car inspected because it was in the shop. Why would Anthony feel Myra was responsible? Well, Anthony shows a picture of a manila folder used as a sign that says management is not responsible for "expire" stickers. Really, when did he make this sign? It is definitely not a professional sign. All of the other signs shown in the picture are professional signs. The Judge is insulted and offended when she views the evidence that Anthony provides. She actually rips up the pictures! Why would he think the Judge would accept this as proof that his customers are receiving the proper notification? In this case, even if he had provided Myra with proper notification, she would still not be held responsible for the tickets. How could Myra get the car inspected when it was in Anthony's shop. I feel bad that Myra had to deal with her car being towed and getting it out of  the impound yard. Myra is awarded the full amount she is suing for. Too bad she is not able to receive more for aggravation! She would deserve it! What do you think?

It Is All About The Paint!

Bertila and Jimmy are suing Emanuel for $2100.00. This is the security deposit they paid for their house rental several months before. Bertila and Jimmy moved out because of the damage done by Hurricane Irene. Bertila tells about their wedding the day the Hurricane started. They came home after the reception instead of staying at the hotel. The flooding was so bad, their refrigerator floated out of the kitchen. Bertila and Jimmy went back to the hotel. When they returned to their home, the flood waters had started to recede. Because of all of the damage, they decided to move out. The landlord understood and returned $1500.00 of their security deposit. Why are we in court? Is it because the landlord wrongly withheld $600.00 of their security deposit due to Hurricane damage. No, it was because Bertila painted 4 of the rooms with very bright colors. Emanuel, their landlord, explains that he did not give permission for these rooms to be painted. These rooms needed to be repainted and that is the reason for keeping part of the security deposit. He explained all of this in a letter to Bertila and Jimmy when he sent them the check for $1500.00. Bertila and Jimmy did not cash the check because they wanted the entire amount returned. So, here we are in court. After hearing about their wedding, the Hurricane, the flooding, the floating refrigerator, we find out none of this has anything to do with the security deposit money. It is because of the paint! The Judge awards them $1500.00, so we find out that their landlord was fair and just! A breath of fresh air in the landlord tenant business!

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

 

Subscribe to stay updated!

 

If you want to be happy, be.

- Leo Tolstoy