Buying A Used Car
Ramona and Stephen are suing David for $10,000.00.
This is about a used car purchase, yet it seems to be about so much more. Ramona and Stephen purchased a used car from David for $4300.00. This was a 12 year old Monte Carlo. Like so many others they did not have a mechanic inspect the car before the purchase. The advertisement David put on Craigslist made certain claims. David has to honor these. When David wrote brand new tires, it is assumed it is all four tires. Ramona has proof that only one tire was new. Also, there were certain things discussed that both parties agree to. This includes fixing the windshield. The item in dispute is the transmission. Ramona claims that David and a mechanic tried to pull a fast one saying the only repair needed was a new cellinoid. After this work was done, the check engine light came on and further inspection found a new transmission was needed. Ramona cannot prove that David had prior knowledge about the condition of the transmission. After all, the car is 12 years old! Why didn't they have a mechanic inspect the car before buying it? The answer of course is money! This costs and no one seems to want to spend the extra money. Yet, the headaches it would avoid...
Ramona tries to make this case about David's character. She shows a YouTube video of David singing and dancing. David does not object to this video being shown in court. Ramona also introduces messages from David's Facebook page. They prove he has fun friends with a sense of humor, but do not prove defamation of character. Ramona and Stephen do recover $490.00, this is for the windshield and the tires. They do not prove their case regarding the transmission or defamation of character. The sale of a used car is as-is. If the owner promises certain things or provides a warranty that is definitely an extra. People need to take responsibility for their decisions. When you purchase a 12 year old car, you have to expect there are going to be repairs needed! Do you agree?
The Missing Coat
Joanne is suing Joseph for $652.89.
Joanne and her family eat at Joseph's restaurant 1-2 times a week. They obviously enjoy the food. On their last visit they were seated in a small booth. They hung their coats on a coat rack located in the center of the restaurant. When they were ready to leave Joanne's coat was missing. Her coat was practically brand new. She had received it as a Christmas present from her husband and only wore it 3 times. When she told the owner what happened, he threw up his arms and said he was not responsible. When she called a few days later to see if her coat had been found Joseph spoke with her. He told her the coat was still missing, but he felt bad about it. After all, she was a very good customer. He offered her gift certificates for the restaurant. Joanne refused and said she would rather have the cash. Joseph was not assuming responsibility for the missing coat. he was trying to do something to make his customer feel better. Joanne cannot prove it is the fault of the restaurant that her coat was stolen. They did not do anything wrong. She hung her coat in an area that other people had access to. Joanne says that there was not a sign regarding a policy on missing items. Why does the store need such a sign? They don't, although Joseph says they now have a sign. The Judge is very clear on personal responsibility. The coat was hanging in an area that anyone had access to. Joanne did not need to read a sign that said the store was not responsible for missing items. She is unable to prove that the restaurant did anything wrong and does not recover the money for her coat. In the hallway, Joseph is still offering the gift certificates. I think Joanne should take him up on the offer. After all, she was a good customer and he acknowledges that. Why should she deny herself and her family a nice time out and an enjoyable meal? What do you think?
The Crooked Contractor
Yvonne is suing Angel for $700.00.
Yvonne hired Angel to do work on her house. She wanted to have several windows boarded up because of drafts. She signed a contract and gave Angel a deposit for $700.00. After Yvonne did this she changed her mind. She contacted Angel and cancelled the work and asked for her money back. In the state of Connecticut, a person has three days to change their mind. She informed Angel of this and expected her deposit back. Angel offered her back $500.00 because he says he already bought some material for the job that he could not return. Why would he do this before the three days? Why wouldn't he return her money? More importantly, why is he working when he is no longer licensed and insured? The contract states that he is licensed and insured. Angel says this is an old contract, he closed his business 3 years ago. Okay, then don't work. Don't take people's money. This is very straightforward. Yvonne gets back her deposit money. Angel shows himself up to be a crooked contractor! Yvonne is very happy as she leaves the courtroom saying Justice is done!
Please share your thoughts in the comments. Thank you for joining me.
Stay Updated - Subscribe!
The man who removes a mountain begins by carrying away small stones.
~William Faulkner
