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 - 10 2 2012 - Tuesday

Shannon And The Color Purple

Shannon wanted highlights in her hair. She did not like the colors that were put in her hair and is suing for $435.00. This is for the cost of the job and the repair. Shannon describes a process by which she chose colors out of a book for her hair. Kevin says she said she wanted purple. He told her purple would not look good with blonde hair. Shannon denies this. She says she wanted eggplant. Well, Shannon...purple and eggplant are the same color! When Shannon saw the colors of her hair when it was done, she was unhappy. So unhappy that she tipped the hair stylist. She did return to the shop three days later and wanted her money back. She says that Kevin told her to give it the weekend and come back. It is so hard to figure out who to believe. Thank goodness the Judge is really really good at this! The Judge decides in favor of Kevin and Shannon does not get any money. I think a major part of the decision involves Shannon using the word, eggplant. It means purple! Shannon's hair looks good now! She should continue going to her current stylist! The Judge shares that she once had purple hair, I would love to see that! 

Dan And His Beloved Guitar

Dan is suing for $1180.00. This is for the cost of the repair to his beloved guitar. Peter is in court to represent the bar that Dan and his band were playing in.  Dan's band is called "Below Average White Band". They play classic 70's rock. One night they were playing in a bar and Dan took a break and put his guitar on the stand. An intoxicated patron carrying a beer in his hand, stumbled on the stage and knocked over a speaker that hit the guitar and broke its neck. Dan describes his guitar as priceless. Thank goodness it was able to be repaired since the bar now has to pay for that. The Judge finds they are liable for the cost of the repair. Dan was able to prove his case. Peter, the manager is not happy about this. Peter was not there that fateful evening and has nothing to contribute to this case! Dan plays in the hallway for us...http://peoplescourt.warnerbros.com/

Robert And The Very Responsible Driver

Robert is suing Brandon for $189.99. This is for the cost of a lawnmower. Brandon was being a responsible driver. He swerved to avoid hitting a cat. He turned into Robert's driver and ran over his lawnmower and ruined part of his vegetable garden. What is Brandon's reward for not killing a cat? He worked for a half a day on Robert's farm and gave him a replacement lawnmower. Two weeks later Robert decided he did not like this particular lawnmower. He bought a new one. Of course he should not expect Brandon to have to pay for a new lawnmower. The Judge awards Robert $85.00. This is the legal answer. 

The moral answer would have been to reward Brandon's responsible driving with a free pass. I think saving a cat's life is way more important than a lawnmower. Please Brandon remember you did the right thing. It is Robert who needs to look at his behavior a little more closely. Also, no one mentioned who the cat belonged to. Since Robert owned a farm amd the cat was in front of Robert's house, what if? ... 

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe

Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known.

~Carl Sagan