The People's Court - General Discussion

[AngelaHunter]

15 hours ago, Bazinga said:

Discussion Link: "Sweetheart Swindler"  

I think there's something I missed the first time in this "Creepy Weirdo vs. Sleazy Romance Scammer."

When JM asks P if he's a swinger, there's a cut and the next thing he says is about a/c filters. It's like his answer was edited out.

In all the romance scams I read about, it takes the scammer at least two weeks to start hinting around that they are in dire straits and need money. In this case, it seems to have taken her only about 24 hours. Maybe doing it in person, versus by IM, drastically cuts down on the time needed to fatten up the mark.

[Bazinga]

Friday's episode will be Season 20, Episode 135, that was originally aired May 26, 2017.  I am not sure why an episode - Episode 134 - was skipped.

Discussion Link: "Pool Problems" 

Case titles: 1) Being All Wet; 2) Taking Money That Isn't His; 3) Taking Advantage.

Google's title case summary: "A woman accuses a man of doing no work to her pool and demands a refund, but the man in question denies her claims and argues that he was never paid for his work."

Thank you, CrazyInAlabama.

Good weekend, everybody!

[Bazinga]

Monday's episode will be Season 20, Episode 136, that was originally aired June 5, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Grumpy Grandparents" 

Case titles: 1) Taking Advantage; 2) Rent Dodging.

Google's title case summary: "A woman claims her daughter and partner owe her for three years of caring for her grandchildren, but the defendant argues that her mother offered to care for them and was compensated."

Thanks again, CrazyInAlabama.

[Bazinga]

Tuesday's episode will be Season 20, Episode 138, that was originally aired June 7, 2017.  As CrazyInAlabama pointed out, episode 137 was skipped for some reason.

Discussion Link: "Crooked Banking" 

Case titles: 1) Not Banking On A Lawsuit; 2) Withholding Information; 3) Doing A Landlord Wrong.

Google's title case summary: "The plaintiff claims he was ripped off after being sold a supposedly rare bank note, but the defendant denies the claims, and insists that the sale was made in all fairness."

[Bazinga]

Wednesday's episode will be Season 20, Episode 139, that was originally aired June 8, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Boiler Blow-Up" 

Case titles: 1) Creating A Combustible Situation; 2) Lackadaisical Landlording; 3) A Snow Job.

Google's title case summary: "A man claims that the defendant is guilty of installing an exploding boiler, but the defendant argues that he gave the necessary advice."

[CrazyInAlabama]

Here's the theoretical lineup for next week, in case the fools doing the fiber optic cable in my front yard cut the internet.     From Titan TV:

Monday 4 March, No Title.  6/13/2017,  Season 20 / Episode 142 , dispute regarding an alleged issue related to automotive work, 

Tuesday 5 March, No Title. 6/14/2017,  Season 20 / Episode 143 , dispute regarding shenanigans in their neighborhood

Wednesday 6 March, No Title. 6/15/2017,  Season 20 / Episode 144 ,  case involves a shattered window,

Thursday 7 March,  No Title. 6/16/2017,  Season 20 / Episode 145 , regarding an unpaid loan for bail, 

Friday 8 March,  No Title.  6/19/2017,  Season 20 / Episode 146  regarding a canceled wedding, 

(Unfortunately, I was right to post early, the people putting in the fiber optic for another company that no one cares to use, chopped a bunch of lines.   Since they're only half finished, and all of our yards look look WWI trench warfare sites, I'm sure they'll screw it up again on Leap Day. )

Edited February 29 by CrazyInAlabama

[Bazinga]

Thursday's episode will be Season 20, Episode 140, that was originally aired June 9, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Friendship Ruined Over a Loan" 

Case titles: 1) Twisting In The Wind; 2) Being A Slippery Salesman; 3) Not Being Fair.

Google's title case summary: "A woman brings her friend to court over an unpaid loan, but the man claims she's piling on unnecessary additional costs."

Thanks for next week's listings, CrazyInAlabama.

[AngelaHunter]

On 2/28/2024 at 12:57 AM, Bazinga said:

"Boiler Blow-Up" 

I didn't remember this even after clicking the link @Bazingaprovided (thanks again to you and @CrazyInAlabama) so I enjoyed that repeat.  P sounded ridiculous.

18 hours ago, CrazyInAlabama said:

all of our yards look look WWI trench warfare sites

Ugh. Sorry to hear that. The power went out here last night at 7 due to ferocious winds and just came back now. 🥶

Hope your mess gets fixed up soon!

[Bazinga]

Friday's episode will be Season 20, Episode 141, that was originally aired June 12, 2017. 

Note: As you can see from the titles, the first case is a dog bite case.

Discussion Link: "Dog Bite Disaster" 

Case titles: 1) A Doggy Disaster; 2) Smoking Out A Tenant; 3) Not Being Sure About Insurance.

Google's title case summary: "The plaintiff claims the defendant's dog got loose and attacked her and her two dogs and is suing for vet and doctor bills."

Edited March 1 by Bazinga

[AngelaHunter]

18 hours ago, Bazinga said:

"Dog Bite Disaster" 

I didn't recognize any of today's cases and just skimmed this one, but it pissed me off. JM tells Def that everyone in the audience was clutching their pearls and gasping with horror over a Rottweiler (an ancient breed that was always of great use to humans for all sorts of tasks until recently when the MSM decided dog horror stories would attract audiences). This, from a woman who has informed us that she keeps HER dog isolated from all humans and other dogs, and in fact will cross the street when walking it if she sees someone coming on her side of the street. Knowledgeable about dogs, she is not. What I saw was a big mutt and not a *GASP* terrifying Rottweiler. But "mutt" wouldn't give everyone a delicious case of the shivers.

I was just scanning past pages of this forum and laughing so hard at all the wonderful posts. I really miss all of you snarkers with the hilarious and witty observations.😕

[Bazinga]

Monday's episode will be Season 20, Episode 142, that was originally aired June 13, 2017. 

Discussion Link:  "Mechanic Mayhem"  

Case titles: 1) Time To Get It Right; 2) Moving Men To Sue Him; 3) I'm Gonna Break Your Legs.

Google's title case summary: "The plaintiff claims that the defendant did not fix the problem with his truck and he was forced to go to another mechanic, whereas the defendant claims the plaintiff's truck needs many repairs because of its age."

[AngelaHunter]

15 hours ago, Bazinga said:

 "Mechanic Mayhem"  

I never saw any of these, and quite liked them!

Ridiculous, perpetual "fiancee" with a bird on her shoulder is here with her man, who, with his jet-black dyed hair and neon lime green shirt, looked like a cheap department store mannequin that has been in storage since 1978. He claims the mechanic def. cheated them. Their 26-year-old truck has problems and since Def was the last person who worked on it, all the problems must be his fault. It couldn't be that, as when you play "Whack-a-Mole", you fix one worn-out, broken part on an ancient veehickle another one craps out the next day?

Both of them should have been tossed the minute Mannequin Man said the bird was a witness. They thought they were cute and quirky, or something. At their ages, they were not. Not at all.

Mover shaking down the Def: I think I'll move to a foreign country and start scamming and ripping people off (and then having the gall to sue the person I ripped off) since it seems there are no consequences. I hope Def learned about the wonderful world of contracts and receipts. He claimed he didn't request a receipt because it was 10 p.m. and asking for a note saying, "(Client) paid in full ____ dollars to (whatever) moving company' and having the "foreman" sign it would just take way too long.

Lastly, the little snowflake... person, who sees Def's apartment, agrees to take it and gives him a $700 deposit KNOWS she can't afford it because she later asks her boss for more hours which I assume he refuses. She then has the gall to say, "I can't afford this place, even though I told you not to rent to anyone else, so I want my money back."

If a contract doesn't specify "Not refundable" that means it is, according to P. JM takes the time to try and explain it, but I think that was a waste of breath. P expects everyone to have her best interests at heart and act accordingly.

I was going to rag on landlord Kevin's too-small, diamond-patterned, V-neck sweater that displayed his tiny round patch of chest hair, but he was in the right in this case.

[Bazinga]

Tuesday's episode will be Season 20, Episode 143, that was originally aired June 14, 2017. 

Note: Case one is another dog bite case.

Discussion Link: "Neighborhood Debacle"  

Case titles: 1) Not Being Too Playful; 2) Not Playing Fair; 3) Refusing Payment.

Google's title case summary: "The plaintiff claims that a woman's dog attacked his dog in a public park, and the defendant argues the dogs were playing and she shouldn't be held responsible for any vet bills."

[Bazinga]

Wednesday's episode will be Season 20, Episode 144, that was originally aired June 15, 2017. 

Discussion Link:  "Sizzling Mad Over a Shattered Window"

Case titles: 1) Being A Snow Blower; 2) Give Me Back My Deposit; 3) Being Out Of Juice.

Google's title case summary: "The plaintiff claims that a rock broke her window, but that the man responsible never paid her for the damage. The defendant argues that her house itself was to blame, not him."

Edited March 7 by Bazinga

[Bazinga]

Thursday's episode will be Season 20, Episode 145, that was originally aired June 16, 2017. 

Discussion Link:  "Bail Loan Blowup"  

Case titles: 1) Skipping Out; 2) Turning On A Tenant; 3) Rear Ending A Guy.

Google's title case summary: "The plaintiffs claims they provided their son's ex-girlfriend with a loan, but she refuses to pay now that the couple has separated."

[AngelaHunter]

17 hours ago, Bazinga said:

Turning On A Tenant

I never thought anyone could say the word "decade" with such scathing scorn as JM did when summing up the case of Lourdes, who has been getting her rent paid by JM and Douglas for the last ten years (Why?) and has the gall to come here and sue the landlord for her deposit back after she gave two day's notice she was moving. Think of the money Lourdes has saved by paying probably between $80 - $170 for the last ten years. I'm innumerate even with a calculator, but say the rent averages out for all that time to just $500/month. So Lourdes has saved about 50K?

I must say I love how these people can't move until the Sec8 squad checks out the new dwelling with a magnifying glass to make sure it's good enough for these tenants.

[CrazyInAlabama]

According to my local edition of Titan TV, here's next week's lineup:

11 March to 15 March

Monday 11 March-“Restraining order ruined our friendship." 6/20/2017,  Season 20 / Episode 147 ,  a restraining order and a ruined friendship

Tuesday 12 March-No Title, 6/21/2017,  Season 20 / Episode 148 ,  about  a puppy,

Wednesday 13 March-“Truck fire fiasco."  6/22/2017,  Season 20 / Episode 149 , about a truck that caught on fire

Thursday 14 March-No Title. 6/23/2017,  Season 20 / Episode 150 ,  a lemon-quality vehicle, 

Friday 15 March-No Title, 5/04/2017,  Season 20 / Episode 119, a parking ticket. (They’re skipping around again on the episode numbers)

[Bazinga]

Thank you for next week, CrazyInAlabama.

Friday's episode will be Season 20, Episode 146, that was originally aired June 19, 2017. 

Discussion Link:  "The Wedding Is Off!"  

Case titles: 1) Letting The Music Die; 2) Giving A Customer The Big Brush Off; 3) Not Paying Off Her Relatives.

Google's title case summary: "The plaintiff claims she gave the defendant a deposit to DJ at her wedding and wants a refund now that her nuptials won't be going ahead, but the defendant argues that he owes her nothing."

[DoctorK]

On today's cases, the first one was boring, plaintiff is stupid and entitled, and she lost.

Second case, Mr. Mercedes and his Aluminum Wheels, was slightly interesting. He claimed that the car wash guys using brushes to clean the wheels, ruined (his word) three of his four wheels by using the brushes on the wheels in spite of his asking them not to, but by the time he stopped them, only one wheel was left untouched (I'll come back to that detail later). He provided pictures of the three allegedly damaged wheels but didn't bother to bring a picture of the untouched fourth wheel. We only got to see one or two of the damaged wheel pictures but JM says that she sees the damages, deep scratches, which to her look like curb hitting damage. Well, the only damage I saw on his wheels was corrosion not scratches or scrapes (I have had aluminum wheels on two of my cars), which is inevitable on aluminum wheels eventually when the protective factory coating wears off and you end up buffing it off (as JM said her husband does) or just let it go as JM does and I always did after a couple of years. JM doesn't think that the brushes did the damage even though the defendant brought in a picture of one of the brushes his guys use which looked a bit grubby but rules against the plaintiff because he couldn't prove that he raised the issue at the time of alleged damage. The plaintiff was stupid to not bring a picture of the unbrushed fourth wheel, probably because it looked pretty much like the three "damaged" wheels. In the hallterview he confirmed my opinion of him, he is a jerk. It seems like Mercedes owners on these shows frequently come across the same way as lawyer litigants.

 

Edited March 8 by DoctorK
clarity

[Bazinga]

Monday's episode will be Season 20, Episode 147, that was originally aired June 20, 2017. 

Discussion Link:   "Restraining Order Ruined Our Friendship"  

Case titles: 1) De-Friending A Friend; 2) Cracking It Up; 3) Cracking Up.

Google's title case summary: "The plaintiff is suing her former friend for the loss of her belongings after claiming that moving in destroyed their friendship."

[Bazinga]

Tuesday's episode will be Season 20, Episode 148, that was originally aired June 21, 2017. 

Discussion Link:   "Pooping Out On A Puppy"  

Case titles: 1) Pooping Out On Puppy Payments; 2) A Back-Up Crack-Up; 3) Standing Firm.

Google's title case summary: "The plaintiff is suing the defendant after she fails to pay after purchasing puppies from him. Meanwhile, the defendant says the plaintiff got violent."

[AngelaHunter]

On 3/8/2024 at 4:01 PM, DoctorK said:

In the hallterview he confirmed my opinion of him, he is a jerk. It seems like Mercedes owners on these shows frequently come across the same way as lawyer litigants.

A very annoying jerk. The Mercedes owners here often do seem to have some sort of superiority complex even if they purchased the car after it passed the quarter-century mark, has a million miles on the odometer, was bought from some guy on the side of the road, and even if it's full of mouse nests.

I always wanted a Mercedes, but until I can get one that didn't roll off the assembly line at the end of the last century, I guess I'll have to do without.

 

[Bazinga]

Wednesday's episode will be Season 20, Episode 149, that was originally aired June 22, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Truck Fire Fiasco"  

Case titles: 1) Fanning The Flames; 2) Selling A Dirty Bed; 3) An Uber-Boo-Boo.

Google's title case summary: "The plaintiff is suing the defendant for the damages to his truck, after the vehicle catches fire shortly after going through the car wash."

[AngelaHunter]

16 hours ago, Bazinga said:

"The plaintiff is suing the defendant for the damages to his truck, after the vehicle catches fire shortly after going through the car wash."

In this new world where everything is someone else's fault, I love backfires like this! Mommy and her great big overfed boy not only got zippo but had to pay the Def $3500 for the siding Big Boy burned up. He was gonna fix it - it's only a couple of pieces of siding. Yeah, right. Can't see him hauling his 300lbs up any ladder. He and Mommy hobble and waddle out, greatly saddened by the unfairness of the world.

[Bazinga]

Thursday's episode will be Season 20, Episode 150, that was originally aired June 23, 2017. 

Discussion Link:   "I'm Livid You Sold Me A Lemon"  

Case titles: 1) Letting A Lemon Go; 2) I Took Nothing; 3) Horsing Around.

Google's title case summary: "The plaintiff accuses the defendant of selling them a faulty car.  However, the defendant denies the accusation and says the plaintiff resorted to violence."

[CrazyInAlabama]

Here's next weeks shows:   18 March to 22 March

Monday-No Title.  5/08/2017,  Season 20 / Episode 121 , about a pizza delivery mishap,

Tuesday-No Title.  5/25/2017,  Season 20 / Episode 134 , boss and employee about  a monetary issue, 

Wednesday-No Title. 6/06/2017,  Season 20 / Episode 137 , a storage issue, 

Thursday-“Friend loan fireworks"   9/04/2017,  Season 21 / Episode 1 , suit over fireworks they loaned out, but were never returned.

Friday-“Your Cat peed on my rug!"  9/05/2017,  Season 21 / Episode 2 , about a cat that allegedly urinated on a rug, 

 

[AngelaHunter]

15 hours ago, Bazinga said:

  "I'm Livid You Sold Me A Lemon"  

I had to rewatch this (even though I don't remember seeing it) to once again reassure myself that my decision to always trade my cars in at a dealer is the right one. Would the extra money I'd make selling privately be worth having thugs pounding at my door to threaten me because the 13-year-old Ford I sold them has some problems? Nope, not at all.

Even though I'm a "lady" who knows absolutely nothing about cars I can figure out that much. (Actually, I used to do my own oil/spark plug/battery changes even though I have no penis!)

Ass-kissing P's Momma needs to put on her big girl panties and take care of her own business. I mean, if the daughter knows nothing about cars either, due to her biology, what's the point of having her buy Momma's cars? They're both clueless.

[Bazinga]

My upcoming listings are very different than CrazyInAlabama (TY, though).

My listing for Friday's episode is Season 21 (a new old season!), Episode 1, that was originally aired September 4, 2017.  I am following that as it runs consecutively with what I have listed for next week.  I am not sure if this is going to be accurate, but here goes. 

Discussion Link:  "Friend Loan Fireworks"  

Case titles: 1) Failing A Friend; 2) Fix Up this House ASAP; 3) A Rear Ender.

Edited March 15 by Bazinga

[CrazyInAlabama]

Titan TV where I get the listings is being very strange.      I'm hoping that it updates to something real.   Every day for TPC now says new, and we all know they aren't new at all.   The local station also uses information from Titan TV.   I'm guessing whoever sends the listing is on leave for a week or so?  The Judge Judy listings did the same thing for a week or so, so I'm hoping TPC will change back. 

Edited March 15 by CrazyInAlabama

[Bazinga]

Monday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 2, that was originally aired September 5, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Your Cat Peed on My Rug!" 

Case titles: 1) Smelling Up The Joint; 2) Not Fixing Things Right; 3) Causing A Scratch.

[CrazyInAlabama]

Titan TV now lists Monday through Friday as Monday Season 21 Episode 2, up to Friday's S21 E06, so now it's back on schedule.    I'm glad it's accurate now, but who knows what's going to happen with them.   I'm suspecting the information is being sent very late.   Unfortunately, both local stations that air TPC, and Judge Judy take their information from Titan TV, so if that source is messed up, everything is.  

Edited March 18 by CrazyInAlabama

[AngelaHunter]

I got the dumbo, overly-pumped P who paid a $200 deposit for a pool table and for the life of him, could not figure out HOW to get it out of Def seller's house. He knew how heavy it was, but had to go consult with "experts".

He couldn't get some other overly-pumped gym guys to help him, instead of a 62-year-old? FFS, even I have a dolly, and you can carry very heavy things on it even if you're an old lady like me. He never heard of such a contraption, but the people who did take the table out knew about dollys and got the thing out easily. No refund for you, and as JM said, the Def could have countersued for the $200 still owed. I wish she had, just to rub it in a little.  It's not her fault he can't find his own ass even with an app. Duhhh.

[Bazinga]

Tuesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 3, that was originally aired September 6, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Livid Over a Loan" 

Case titles: 1) Not Making A Payback; 2) Letting His Dog Get Away; 3) Being Strict Landlords.

Case two is a dog attack case.

Edited March 19 by Bazinga

[Bazinga]

Wednesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 4, that was originally aired September 7, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Roommate Rent Riot" 

Case titles: 1) Running Out On The Rent; 2) Being Doggone Careless; 3) Dumping A Truck.

[AngelaHunter]

Levin, for the dump truck fiasco (I wasn't as quick to hit FF as I was when originally seeing this case):

"It's the case of Taking a Dump."

Eww. Levin is such a nasty, twisted little butt sniffer. I'd hate to see the search history and bookmarks on his computer. I'm pretty sure I'd be traumatized.😱

[Bazinga]

Thursday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 5, that was originally aired September 8, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Harassing a Handyman" 

Case titles: 1) Not Getting It Done; 2) You Crook; 3) Playing Around With A Customer.

[CrazyInAlabama]

 25 to 29 March (According to Titan TV)

Monday-"Friendship Ruined Over a Loan"  9/12/2017,  Season 21 / Episode 7 ,

Tuesday-“"Exes Battle Over Mortgage"  9/13/2017,  Season 21 / Episode 8

Wednesday-"Battle Over a Band" 9/14/2017,  Season 21 / Episode 9 ,

Thursday-"Rent Riot"  9/15/2017,  Season 21 / Episode 10

Friday-"Getting steamed!"   9/18/2017,  Season 21 / Episode 11

[AngelaHunter]

15 hours ago, Bazinga said:

: "Harassing a Handyman" 

Something puzzled me here, maybe due to my lack of legal knowledge.

The gravel-voiced, stunned-looking P suing the toothless handyman (How does one eat with no teeth? Really? Swallow everything whole, like a snake? Put your steak in a blender? HOW?)

Anyway, P was always going to have to pay at least 1K to get the new water heater and pipes etc., had she hired qualified people from the start. JM always says court is about putting you in the same position you were in "before the bad thing happened" and not about getting a boe-nanza.

So P paid Kevin 300$ and then had to get the pros in for $1300. JM awards her the entire amount she paid the new workers - $1300.

So, P got a 1K job done for $300 - a bonanza, no? Shouldn't she just have been awarded the $300 back, since Kevin's work was worthless?🤔

[Bazinga]

Quote

Shouldn't she just have been awarded the $300 back, since Kevin's work was worthless?

AngelaHunter, as a lawyer, I agree with you.  This was the typical JM "cheap comes out expensive" case.  Plaintiff knew she was hiring a handyman, not someone with a plumbing license and then acts aggrieved when the shit hits the fan.  SHE deserved to get punished for that.  Plaintiff hired incompetent and got incompetent.  A case of you get what you pay for if there ever was one.  Who thinks hiring someone you need to buy tools for is a good idea?  I also think plaintiff probably did agree to give the handyman the tools that were bought for the job, as she wouldn't need them and this was an added incentive for the defendant who was being paid a pittance.  JM pointed out that the plaintiff tried to "double dip" by suing for the payment made to the defendant plus the payment to the qualified plumber and electrician (what JM called "the bunch of money" she paid the qualified tradespeople).  JM pointed out, correctly, that this would be a bonanza for her.  Where JM wavered from her usual, was in ordering the defendant to pay the cost to do this right  JM said that the plaintiff gets the benefit of her bargain - installation for $300.  But, we have seen similar cases and the usual damages were just the payment made to the incompetent repair person being returned.  She would be whole, as you are pointing out, and then need to do what she should have done in the first place, hire licensed, competent tradesmen and pay them what the job is worth.  Nowhere was there evidence that the handyman made the job worse.  The letter (and suddenly letters are OK as evidence) from the inspector with opinions about things that were way beyond his purview - cursing, belligerence of the handyman, tools not needed for the job - seemed very one sided toward following what the plaintiff told him but since he is an "official" it is to be deemed accurate.  Plaintiff knowingly hired incompetent, got incompetent and then gets to only pay the fee quoted by the incompetent for quality work.  That, too, is a bonanza.  Ridiculous and inconsistent from JM, in both our opinions. 

I really did not like the plaintiff.  She was obviously lying about a lot of what happened (I might have had one drink; throwing in they smoked a joint together to make him look bad; I never said anything about the dead wife - I don't believe her) and I do think the defendant was basically truthful in that he wasn't smart enough to come up with good lies.  The problem was that he had no defense for leaving the job and he was not good at speaking and representing himself, but, no, he should not have to pay for her boiler installation minus the $300 he gets for his trouble, which now seems to include the city going after him.  He should have had to return the payment and that is it, in my opinion.

Friday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 6, that was originally aired September 11, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Exes Wedding War"

Case titles: 1) Wrecking A Wedding; 2) Causing A Canine Injury; 3) Insurance Fraud.

Edited March 25 by Bazinga

[AngelaHunter]

@Bazinga Thank you. I was hoping you would explain this seemingly unfair judgment. I was sure that's the way it usually works, but we've seen this before. There was a case of a new liner being installed in an old pool and the owner paid some neighbour a small amount to install it. Neighbour had no idea what he was doing, so P had to hire pros. He got back all the money he paid the pros instead of the pittance he gave the Def.

I thought that was very unfair too. If you omitted the Def and his bumbling attempts, the Ps would have always had to pay the much larger sum, but they ended up getting a real bargain - "enrichment" - and didn't have to pay what anyone else would have who didn't try to cheap out.

I guess it's not my place to question "WHY?"

[Bazinga]

AngelaHunter, Judge Milian's stated reason was that the plaintiff gets the benefit of her bargain; the installation for $300, with the defendant paying the difference.  To both of us this does not make sense, though we have seen it a few times in the past, the regular recovery in such cases has been the return of the payment made to the incompetent tradesman who did not do the job and even then, sometimes she has allowed the defendant to keep partial payment.  The only reason I can see the defendant had to pay "the bundle of money" is if he made the situation worse by his actions and there wasn't testimony in this direction and, if it was the reason for the decision, a bigger deal should have been made about that issue than there was.

 

Monday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 7, that was originally aired September 12, 2017. 

Discussion Link:   Friendship Ruined Over a Loan

Case titles: 1) Turning A Guy Down; 2) Cutting A Landscaper Down; 3) Crashing And Dashing.

[Bazinga]

Tuesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 8, that was originally aired September 13, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Exes Battle Over Mortgage" 

Case titles: 1) Hitting A Husband Where It Hurts; 2) Not Strutting His Stuff; 3) Stealing Security.

[AngelaHunter]

18 hours ago, Bazinga said:

"Exes Battle Over Mortgage" 

This was cut off for me when it aired originally. Ridiculous, but I do have a question: Did the def, peeking at JM from under her wig, go to work?🤔

[Bazinga]

Wednesday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 9, that was originally aired September 14, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Battle Over a Band" 

Case titles: 1) Still Not Finding What He's Looking For; 2) A Cell Phone Disaster; 3) Pretending.

[Bazinga]

Thursday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 10, that was originally aired September 15, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Rent Riot" 

Case titles: 1) Leaving High & Dry; 2) Doggie Drama; 3) The Problematic Pontiac.

Case 2 is a dog bite case. 

Limited discussion of this episode - SRTouch's recap and one AngelaHunter post; the prior day's episode consumes the conversation.

Edited March 28 by Bazinga

[AngelaHunter]

On 3/27/2024 at 1:56 AM, Bazinga said:

"Battle Over a Band"

The most shocking thing about the repeat with the (in)famous Joseph Cumia is a man his age with zero sense who posts all kinds of crap all over the place - using his real name -  and never, ever thinks it might come back to impact his personal or professional life. Not too swift, are you, Joe? I expect that kind of mindless nonsense from the TikTok generation. 

This great, big middle-aged man, standing there and whining about "online, Reddit bullies" made me embarrassed for him. What an asshole.

This repeat made me curious and I had to look up Joe and see how he's doing these days. Well, there's an hour-long video about him and if you have free time you might give it a glance. The narration is witty and hilarious and Joe is way more of a douchebag buffoon than it seems possible.

Start at 1:00.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oZ3_FwZxrn8

 

 

[CrazyInAlabama]

TPC seems to be keeping to chronological order.

Week: 1 to 5 April

Monday-"Wedding Dress Disaster"  9/19/2017,  Season 21 / Episode 12 ,  case involves an issue with a wedding dress.

Tuesday-“Livid at a Landlord"  9/20/2017,  Season 21 / Episode 13

Wednesday-“Furious over getting fleeced!"  9/21/2017,  Season 21 / Episode 14 

Thursday-"If You Cook for Me, I'll Get You a Cell Phone”  9/22/2017,  Season 21 / Episode 15  case regarding a meal preparation and a cellular phone 

Friday-"Tile Tussel"  9/25/2017,  Season 21 / Episode 16 ,

[Bazinga]

Friday's episode will be Season 21, Episode 11, that was originally aired September 15, 2017. 

Discussion Link: "Getting Steamed!" 

Case titles: 1) Getting Soaked; 2) Mucking Up A Motorcycle; 3) Bailing On Bail.

Thank you, CrazyInAlabama.

Happy Easter, everyone!

[CrazyInAlabama]

At first I was going to watch Bargain Block reruns, but when I read SRTouch's excellent recap of the first case, complete with Judge M yelling at the man to leave, I changed my mind.    

I thought it was so funny that plaintiff claimed he knew what was wrong with the pipes and water pressure, and he was wrong.   The pipes were already copper, and when defendant dug down, it turns out that the valve wasn't turned on all of the way.   

I love the first case! The plaintiff was so out of control.   Plaintiff claiming he didn't kick defendant's car was such an obvious lie.   I love how defendant was supposed to pay plaintiff $200, then plaintiff stomps out kicking the door out of the courtroom swinging doors, and Judge M finds in defendant's favor, and plaintiff case dismissed.    That was hysterical.    (Plaintiff looked familiar). 

 

(I'm just glad Titan TV's listing are back to normal.   And TPC is apparently running their season in order).  

Edited March 30 by CrazyInAlabama

[Bazinga]

Quote

I love the first case! The plaintiff was so out of control.   Plaintiff claiming he didn't kick defendant's car was such an obvious lie.   I love how defendant was supposed to pay plaintiff $200, then plaintiff stomps out kicking the door out of the courtroom swinging doors, and Judge M finds in defendant's favor, and plaintiff case dismissed.    That was hysterical.    (Plaintiff looked familiar). 

I remembered the plaintiff.  I loved his body language at the bench when MM was not understanding his explanation of the problem.  Also loved how he did not button the collar buttons on his ill-fitting shirt. 

Strip away some of the details of this case and it is the same as the case from last week with handyman Kevin having to pay for the plaintiff's new boiler installation.  Here, plaintiff wanted plumber to install copper pipes and plumber, for his own reasons (felt not necessary), did not complete the job, just like Kevin did not complete the job for his own reasons (plaintiff's behaviors toward him).  In both cases the defendants' repairs were enough to get the problem solved-the water pressure corrected here and hot water for plaintiff in an emergency situation in last week's case-but complete services were not rendered.  Here JM intended to refund part of the fee plaintiff paid, $200, since defendant did not do the complete job he had been contracted to complete by not installing the copper pipes.  She did not rule that defendant had to pay whatever someone else might charge to install the copper pipes plaintiff still felt he needed.  In neither case was there testimony that the defendants' made the situation worse.  In today's case, JM made a distinction that the defendant unilaterally created a new deal in digging up and turning on the water main and not installing the pipes, as plaintiff wanted and charging $1,500.  Kevin did not complete the job because of claimed issues with plaintiff's behavior.  So, again, why did Kevin the handyman have to pay for the plaintiff's boiler installation and Joe the plumber only had to refund $200 of the $1,500 payment he had already been paid?  My answer to that question is that Judge Milian is inconsistent and was totally wrong in the handyman case in awarding plaintiff the cost of having the boiler installed by someone else and not just awarding plaintiff a full or partial refund.  The only other differences I can spot are that Joe the Plumber, as hard as it is to believe, was better at defending himself and his reason for not completing the job seems more reasonable than Kevin, who had vague, unsupported reasons for just quitting the job.  But the end result was that both defendants' did not complete the job they were contracted to do, yet the decisions were very different.  

Happy Easter!

Edited March 31 by Bazinga