Did Buyer's Remorse Bring Them to Court? | Part 2
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 08. 2024
- Rocco never picked up his furniture because he wanted to return it. Is he owed money because some of it was sold?
#JudgeJudy
The Original! There’s only ONE Judge Judy. Visit our website for where to watch, weekdays.
Subscribe to Judge Judy on CZcams: / @judgejudy
So she refused to give him back a refund for the pieces he no longer wanted, but then sold them to someone else, so he’s out the money and also doesn’t have the furniture??? That’s not right.
Final sale. When it's final sale you cant refund the item.
He got his money in the end Washstdy so don't worry yourself.
@@annaythao7035 But then she can't sell the items
It would be his problem if he never picked them up. That's the issue and why JJ said, "you should have picked up the nine pieces and brought them home."
Sales were final… reading is Fundamental
This case settled better than I thought. The furniture store breached their own contract "all sales are final", and got caught. Good for the delivery driver, by refusing to take partial shipment he put the liability back on the furniture store.
I don't understand?!
@@treeyellow4627 "all sales are final" means the store could not take the merchandise back and re-sell it, it is a breach of contract.
a dollar re-sold out of even 8125$ is a breach of a final sales contract.
they should have never allowed the products back on the lot to begin with.
Knowing credit card company support, it is likely the back-and-forth between management and Amex that messed all this up. Some unqualified CSR probably suggested taking it back.
That is the danger of taking legal advise from those not qualified to dispense it.
@@tugger great! Thank you for your help! Makes sense!😊
@@tugger Thanks for the explanation. I didn't understand why it was a big deal she sold the items if he never went back to pick them up.
@@tugger great explanation
If you are hired to pick up 14 pieces of furniture and are presented with an itemized list that shows that you were given 14 pieces of furniture BUT you are ONLY given 9 pieces of furniture then YOU DO NOT SIGN NOR DO YOU TAKE 9 PIECES OF FURNITURE!! The driver is protecting himself.
Judy was talking to the plaintiff when she said take the 9 pieces and sue for the 5 sold
He could’ve easily instructed the driver to take the 9 pieces and the driver would not be in trouble
The delivery driver was absolutely right. He was there to pick up 14 items. They didn't have 14 items, therefore he's not picking anything up at all. Had he have just gotten 9 items the plaintiff would have been stuck with 9 pieces of furniture he didn't want, and he'd have to mix/match for the missing 5...which wasn't their initial agreement. I don't understand why JJ was yelling at him for not picking up the 9 they had. If I buy a car and when I go pick it up its missing the back seat...I'm not going to just take the car home and get the backseat later, or get a refund for it. I'm not picking up the car at all.
Exactly.
The mover was the best thing going for the plaintiff.
And awfully smart and cute too! 😉
I agree. JJ was ignorant of how pickups and deliveries are done. Moving companies are very precise.
Agreed but your analogy doesn't work. You would be missing something from the single item you purchased without which the item purchased would be incomplete.
If, for example, he bought a dresser and when he went to pick it up a drawer was missing then your analogy would be correct.
Your analogy is trash, it’s sad how many people failed middle school.
@@elvickRULES Maybe one day when you can actually afford to buy furniture instead of picking it up from the sidewalk on trash day you'll be able to understand why my analogy makes sense
the delivery driver is so honest!!!! love him!
I knew the Defendant was gonna get slammed for the 5 missing pieces...She double profited on the same set of furniture..
That's fine to do that if he didn't pick them up in a reasonable time. The problem was that she didn't have receipts showing that she didn't still have the pieces. Because if she did then she would have to return them. At least that's what I believe Judy was going after
@@groowanderer she had no right to sell them but she could have charged storage. She didn't show the receipts because she knew she sold the piece well before the sale date she claimed.
@@peryole in my opinion, being as all sales were final, he never should have brought the pieces back in the first place. He basically abandoned them at her store. Why is she expected to do all kinds of extra work, such as storing them, maintaining them, all while fighting to get the money she rightfully earned in the first place?
@Milk&Cookie no, he brought them home, didn't like them, and returned all 7 pieces. That's how I understood it. That's why the guy was employed, to take them back to the store.
@Milk&Cookie crap. I'll have to watch it again lol. I thought he bought them, brought them home, returned them, and then sent over his helper to pick them back up AFTER the bank found it to be a legit transaction. So at that point he was stuck with them. But the guy wouldn't grab em because all of it wasn't there.
4:33 “ I don’t even like her” LMAO!!!! 😂
"I don't even like her" LOL
I believe him! If he liked her he would've just bought 1 furniture as an anchor to make his advances, not 14.
Funny...lol...an anchor, my husband used that tactic lol...
I don't think he made advances toward her either. She said that when she rejected him, he tried to cancel the few items on his order, which doesn't add up. The man spent $8k in the store to furnish his home. No one goes into a store and spends that kind of money and then decides to return just a few pieces later on account of something so trivial. Ugh.
Type of lady that believes men are upset with her because they secretly like her lol. Nah you're just a dodgy business owner
She’s a liar lol.
She was trying to stick that delivery driver with her problem. Smart dude. Someone must have explained that to Judy during the break. The furniture store was going to say the delivery service stole it. Conveniently lose the proof of furniture was picked up like the receipt, she couldn't give judge Judy. No doubt about that.
Right
I feel like Judge Judy was playing possum so she could extract more information
@@Mrs.buildingblackwealth or they sold his pieces while in dispute, and if delivery driver accept 9 items , then it gives the furniture store more time to re-order replacements they sold. It would look like they were operating in good faith with 9 items picked up, probably to tell the man another month or 2 for the remaining 5 items. Shady business practice, but they got caught breaching their own "all sales are final". That is the reason she could not, and did not want to produce actual receipts of sold date to the other parties. Judge Judy has a limit of $5000, he is still out $3210, but he won his case, and the furniture store has alot of bad publicity.
Agreed.
Exactly right! All or nothing especially when applied to disputes with insurances and cards. A paper trail (communication, payment records, call logs, text/voice messages, photos-before/during/after, voice recordings) date and time stamped for court. Burden of Proof is on BOTH Defendants AND Plaintiffs (with countersuit.) People need to realize this. Don't bring attacks of paper, judges don't have time for that, just specially detailed insurances to prove your case.
Wow that took a turn. I thought he was going to lose. But that defendant didn’t have a clue. What did she expect to happen? Lol
She breached her own contract of all sales are final. She re- sold some pieces while in dispute with him, can't do that, unless you refunded his purchase. Got caught.
FAAAAAACTS, she str8 donkey’s herself.
Oh no, she knew exactly what she was doing. She just got caught lol
the defendant is the owner of the business and didn't have a clue about anything!!!
@@LC-se8pw Not only that, she got caught with her tax dodge clever receipts. As soon as JJ heard she had TWO sets of receipts she was done.
The defendant could not hide her hustling ways. Watching her squirm and try to fool the judge was amazing. What a scammer. Then at the end she claimed he wanted to date her.... such a liar.
Yes she lied and the plantif was real when he said he doesn't like her
Guarantee she lied about him trying to make a pass at her. He doesn't even like her. He could barely tolerate her. She's such a liar.
Right!
She got caught hustling and made up a lie at the very end to make him look like a perv?
No, she is a straight up hustler!
Yeah somehow the software for the description of the items sold completely changed after he bought his items. It's too bad the show pays the money here as it always does. She got paid twice with no consequences.
NEVER EVER buy from a store that says NO returns or NO refund. they have something shady going on!
Swap Meets are bad at no return policy
It's a consignment store. The consignee get's paid when the item sells, so I imagine it would be a real pain if they allowed returns. Also if I had my items on consignement I wouldn't want them being trucked back and forth to the store and back because people can't operate a tape measure properly.
@@Bread996 That's a good reason for a no refund policy. However, printed on the receipt, while being a statement of policy, is not an indication that the buyer has considered and accepted the policy, therefore it isn't a contract. This shop needs to have a rundown of this policy and have the customer sign acceptance of it. Selling $8000 worth of stuff without a signature on this is ridiculously stupid.
@@bravo2966 I worked for a maternity store that had a no refund policy and 14 day exchange only policy. This is also a good reason as these are clothes you only wear for a short time, or maybe once for special occasion. We verbally explained the policy, had it printed on the back of the receipt, and made them sign the receipt acknowledging they understood the return policy. We still had people trying to return stuff. I even had one woman pull a Kramer from Seinfeld and try to return the very pants she wore into the store! When I refused, crazy lady stripped them off in the middle of the store and threw them on the counter saying we couldn’t make her keep them, then proceeded to leave the store in her underwear! Did I mention this was in midtown Manhattan? Gotta love the crazies!
Always ask and record the return policy
The plaintiff was absolutely hilarious at the end🤣🤣🤣 "I don't even like her never did never did"🤣🤣🤣
😂😂😂😂😂😂
😅😅😅😅
I couldn’t stop laughing
I bet she was hurt 😂😂
😂😂😂😂
Please, spare us. Girl that man does not want you!!!
She’s a hustler.
Glad she lost
I didn't think the Plantiff was going to win in the beginning. But glad he did. That defendant seemed sketchy.
AF!!!
Firstly be tried to be scam his cc company hence why he lost that battle. IF that furniture store kept better records and didn't use these flimsy receipts and never documented these jerks dropping off everything out of anger then the defendant would've 100 percent won. Been through this a dozen times and went to court for my business for this same exact nonsense. Wr always won. You want to drop off YOUR property then you run the risk of it being stolen or damaged. We NEVER accepted responsibility because it wasn't ours anymore. We never resold or anything because we'd hold it until the cc issue was settled and then these dumb customers ALWAYS come back for it because they realize it's theirs and they're paying on it. Hopefully this store learned a lesson on that nonsense. He wouldn't have won against a reputable furniture store.
Yeah, she was BSing her way through her papers at the end.
Yeah he seemed rather arrogant to me, so I was surprised on this "5/14 missing piece" twist.
She will get no more customers after this 🤦🏾♀️
Hopefully not cause he just los 3000 dollars!!!! That’s a lot of money
I love the post-verdict interviews 😂😂
"I don't even like her!" LOL
@@bgm1236 lol
I originally was on her side until she sold his stuff why would you sell his stuff knowing he was coming to get it
Exactly 😌.
Coming to get it when though?
@@rinthemagicalunicorn does it have a time frame as to when the items can be collected ?
@@noelicialaborde4963 no store will hold purchased items until you just feel like grabbing them as no business is held liable legally speaking to protect goods it no longer owns. Since it's a consignment shop, the items became noted as abandoned so resold.
@@noelicialaborde4963 uhh Yeah, it does have a timeframe when they should pick their shit up... Duh
As as businessman I would absolutely cancel one item that a customer changed their mind on vs. losing out on a 14+ item sale. Gotta make the customer happy and it wasn't as if they had delivered the item and he soiled it and said take it back. I wouldn't shop there, that's for sure.
Exactly, then they’ll be back to buy more tell their friends and family how great you were to deal with and have them shop with you.. Now, everyone he meets will be warned about her shading dealings..
Right? Why would you even risk losing a good customer like that? People that walk into a furniture store and drop over $5000 for 14 items don't grow on trees. You keep that person happy by canceling a couple of items. You want that person, their friends, their family, their coworkers, etc to all come shop at your store and drop another $5000.
Most businesses accept change of mind returns, the simple reason is you have to accept returns if the item is damaged. If a shop refuses a change of mind return on say, a dress, the buyer could easily remove a bit of stitching and say it's damaged and get a refund that way. Then the shop is out the money and don't have a dress to sell. If they accept the return they still have the dress to sell later.
This moron defendant should have accepted the change of mind returns from the buyer, he'd have bought all the other things and probably later bought different items from her further down the line.
This 'all sales are final' is not a contract either. A contract needs to be considered by both sides before being accepted.
Well now the store has 10 million people aware of their business practices. Not a good move on their part. That is why the defendant would not, could not show real receipts of when the 5 other items were sold, probably in December or January while in litigation with plaintiff, breaching their own "all sales are final" contract.
@@bravo2966 We already know she is a shitty businessperson. She apparently has a POS system that doesn't even record sale prices on the receipt LMAO. I feel sorry for her accountant.
She is definitely a bad store owner … she needs to get her crap together 😂
A get a more detailed receipt when I buy a slurpee at 7-11. Defendant was handing over receipts that could have been for pretty much anything. She needed to prove that she didn't immediately resell the stuff he already paid for, making it impossible for him to pick them all up, but all she had was crap.
The defendant is a crook. She manipulated the whole situation...
The way the plaintiff was looking at the defendant smiling when judge Judy was yelling at her for the receipts 😂😂
The ooh of the audience at the end of JJ judgement had me cracking up. This is one of those cases that ended up with a twist.
She SOLD HIS FURNITURE. Now making stories. Give him his 5000
When you own a business, you want your customers to be happy so that they come back. You especially want the one’s who come in and drop over $8,000 to be happy. Why didn’t she just refund him the sectional like he originally wanted? It’s not like he had the items in his possession. They were still at the store. She could have avoided this whole drama.
Yeah it seems that this was very unusual and she needed the money so she was willing to do anything to keep it, including selling 5 things twice. I think a reputable store would have refunded two things as you say despite the policy just to have him come back. A consignment shop is not likely to have a lot of storage space so I bet she sold that stuff as soon as someone else wanted it.
The way he looks at her has me dying 😂😂😂
At first I was rooting for the defendant because she had the “All Sales are Final” but when she doubled back and sold the same furniture that was already sold to the man…. That was flat out wrong. What a plot twist, and the delivery driver was extremely wise not to accept the partial delivery.
As a business owner, you never put your own foot in your mouth. She put her foot in and bit off all the toe nails. I’m glad he got his $5000…. $1000 per item missing.
bit off the toenails chewed them up barfed them back up made a pie with them ate the pie
Put the papers down! 😂
She sold his items after fighting for keeping his money? She couldn't prove when she sold the items? Defendant is sketchy. Did he lose $3,000 in this process?
Yes he did
He was after her body.
“I don’t even like her” 😆
I believe him, first she wasn't at all attractive, and I don't just say that because I'm gay, she really isn't attractive. He was literally disgusted when she even suggested it, and not in a Monster's Ball way, although she is far from being Halley Berry.
Based on what? Because she made that accusation only AFTER she scammed him and sold his stuff fumbling for a receipt she never had? He may have thought she was a hottie but when she waits until the end to mention it I don't believe her at all. The receipts worked fine to sell them once.
Love how these women love to lie on a man and say “he made advances towards me” after they lose a case. 😂😂😂 Not once was that brought up in court. Girl bye!!
I noticed that too. She lost the case and had to add in that last little jab. Some women are awful 😒
"I don't even like her" I loved his reply lol.
You do know the cases are edited right
I believe her I’m sorry. I have some experience with some older Italian men that are really from Italy… They do like some black women. She even has a haircut that a lot of Italian women have and he looks like he goes for younger women. He presents as a person who can afford to go to Ethan Allen or a better furniture store. I think she didn’t bring it up in the case because we are dealing with Judge Judy. Judge Judy would tell her that it’s a irrelevant, which it is. The case was about whether he could get his money back and the fact that she resold items that she already sold to him. He is so emphatic at the end that he did not make advances toward her… Any FBI interrogator can tell you that when someone keeps saying things by doubling down on the same word it often points to deception. Of course I could be wrong but I am A black woman married to an Italian who has a best friend who is a black woman married to an Italian. It’s a thing🤣
“I don’t even like her” 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
" Hahahahaha I don't even like her "😂😆😂😆
“Not as well. This is nothing.” I love her.
“I don’t even like her” 😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣
It's the baby voice and gap for me lol 😆
It’s a rare day when Judge Judy misinterprets a case. Once it was discovered that the defendant sold the plaintiff’s purchased property to another customer, that means she profited TWICE on the same pieces of furniture which the plaintiff never received. Shame, shame, SHAME on her for scamming the defendant!!!
She scammed herself? Keep editing
Judgement for the plaintiff in the amount of $5000 we’re done
"We're Done" I Love When I Hear It... 🥰
It was the “I don’t even like her” for me 🤣😂😂😂
Waiting on this comment🤣🤣😂🤣😂🤣 KILLED ME
She sold thousands of dollars of his stuff then tried to give JJ a receipt for a $25 silver giraffe. She didn't resell his stuff in March, she resold it in December as soon as the credit card company said she was getting the money back. That's why she tried to give JJ a bunch of random vague receipts.
No doubt. Might have been earlier, I doubt she has much storage space. Seems like a low volume store and it's a consignment shop, not a furniture store.
How do you keep the books for that business if the store receipt does not show the price?
You don’t. I bet that is by design so she doesn’t declare all her sales.
you can't, that's called money laundering and racketeering.
@@ceceliamoreno1845 But she was able to produce his receipt with a price on it from her records. So she definitely is keeping receipts with the price on it. She just didn't want to produce them.
@@exoressdelivers70 yeah, the part where she claimed he was interested in her...he...he...she thought she was a very attractive piece of furniture, lmao...
Glad the plaintiff won. This is greediness to the highest level. She wanted double money...tomfoolery 😡. It is nerve racking to watch Judge Judy at times . Sitting in my chair and thinking 🤔 to myself, this woman can't win this case. The furniture store must be hard up with cash...l think, to cheat somebody like this.
I wouldn't say that the store cheated someone. If he had taken the furniture and was satisfied with it and there was no issue then this there's nothing wrong with the store. The only thing that made this unusual was that the plaintiff was unsatisfied with his purchase. What she should have said him was here's the nine pieces of the fourteen you paid $8k for. The other five were sold for X amount of money. Then give him the money that she made selling the other pieces up to the maximum original purchase amount of $8,000.
I don’t even like her 😂 I’m glad he got some of his money back. She’s a scammer
How he puts his hand up everytime he doesn't get what he wants kills me 🤣
The Don!! I 😏😅😅😅
Just once I’d like to hear her ask Bird if all of this is bothering him. He always looks so put out 😂
He's a grump and it's probably why she didn't ask him on her newest show. The new guy is really nice and smiles.
Lol Exactly. I bet he is making like $500k+ a year to pass papers back and forth.
Yeah he’s always in a mood. Like he doesn’t want to be there.
Apparently his salary was too much and the budget couldn’t cover it. Remember her new show has to pay the stenographer and the law clerk (her grand daughter) too. So they allegedly asked Byrd to make concessions AND he wouldn’t. In the long run, Byrd will be on the newest show JJ is producing , that also features her lawyer son. So he’s fine. Everyone always comments about “poor” Byrd 😆😆 in her videos… not these comments, but other videos
He always looked like he didn’t want to be there, so he got his wish I guess.
She created a headache for herself. Not even 24 hours later this man said he wanted to modify his order.
She lost him as a future customer because she tried to bully him.
I'm curious if the store communicates the no returns policy BEFORE taking the cash.
Exactly she needs to let him no or have a sign that says no returns on all items
I was with the defendant until I discovered she didn’t have all his items after she got to keep the money. Now that’s sus and greedy!
He should send American Express a copy of his judgement against her and get the rest of his money back from them.
I'm surprised American express didn't give him all his money back. American express used to be good every time I disputed something they always gave me my money back
I think in this case they did return his money, but then she disputed that and got the money returned to her. I think that’s why initially it seemed like JJ was siding with her. But the defendant looked shady as hell when she said she sold some items but couldn’t provide receipts
He made advances towards her, so she decides to keep/resell his merch?! What a thief, she belongs to the streets! 🤨🙄🤭
"I dont even like her" 🤣🤣🤣
defendant seems like a massive scammer. i was on her side until she started trying to duck and dodge around trying to show a proper receipt for another purchase.
All sales are final and it clearly states that on the receipt, but it’s telling that she wasn’t able to produce receipts of his items that she sold! Should’ve been just as detailed. I’m glad the defendant was held to the same terms of her contract as the plaintiff!
I tried to stay on the defendants side but she clearly lacks listening skills so I’m siding with the plaintiff. Glad he got his $5,000.
And why did you try to stay on the defendant's side exactly?
Strange that JJ was so firm about the "all sales final" on the receipt. In previous cases, she said a receipt like that can't be regarded as a contract cos the receipt is generated AFTER the purchase and not before.
At the bottom of the receipt didn't it say all sales final?
@@maryrodger5130 Yes, and that IS a binding contract.
Are they the contract, or the proof of a contract, you don't agree to something if it is only printed on a receipt, because you get that after the contract is agreed.
It's a shady practice employed by many businesses. It's like slipping in a 'Sold as Seen' in the receipt without mentioning it once during the sale. - I had a car firm try and get me with that one once.
When is a receipt EVER generated BEFORE a sale FFS??
How in the world does a owner of a store NOT have record of the amount(s) with the items and she has a computer?! I owned a store many years ago and had an old fashioned register and wrote out old fashioned receipts WITH the item(s) code AND the amount(s) with tax and total. How does she relieve her inventory and record the amount of the item?
Especially when this is a purchase for which she'd had to deal with a disputed charge with AmEx for a couple of months. And she didn't have *any* real records? BS.
She does have a record of the amounts and items sold. You see she produced a copy of his receipt showing what he purchased and how much he paid. It would have been odd that his receipt would be the only one kept by the store with this information and other receipts were not. She just didn't want to produce them.
Judge Judy had me at the edge of my seat. Exciting!
They always go to that "He likes me or he made a pass at me... I rejected him, now he's acting out of spite"... always. But that never stops them from taking the man's money... never. Lol!
Yes, he needs to read the business terms more carefully before he buys anything but what she did was scamming. The fact that she sold the furniture 2 times is really annoying for both of her customers and for her own accountancy. It's also embarrasing. Here in Belgium, that's why there is a law where you have a return policy of 14 days of whatever item for whatever reason and with strict accountancy rules which you need to bring in every year, which they evaluate for every business. Mistakes happen but are with a fine in my country. She would never have the possiblity here to scam him like that.
The delivery driver was smart to not pick up the items with missing pieces. The defendant is a terrible businesswoman. I was in a similar situation where a buyer too tried to pull this stunt. But in my case, I did not touch the items until everything was 100% resolved. Her mistake was selling the items to somebody else when the dispute hadn't finished.
So she could reprint his receipt with the prices, but no one else's? Then she pulls the harrassment card when caught scamming. Pathetic.
Good job judge ! She’s a hustler
"I don't even like her." LOL!
I've watched JJ for so long I know when her frustration Level Is at lift off. Love it.
I would have refunded him for the two pieces initially or offered him store credit. That's a very large purchase price for consignment and he surely would have been a repeat customer. She can't double dip and take his money and resell his property. She had to choose one. She could have shown storage fees for the months in dispute though.
JJ was wrong about all sales being final. That was a post sale provision imposed by the seller after the sale was made. It was only ever revealed after the sale on a receipt for money or consideration - offer - acceptance - consideration.
Absolutely love this case! You go Judge Judy!! Brilliant!
I worked in a furniture store for about 4 years. I already know what happened because we dealt with it ALL the time. Special orders cannot be canceled or returned. Clearance items cannot be canceled or returned. Items that you either get delivered or pick up and do not fit or whatever, there's a 15 percent restocking fee. When customers get mad about something they think they're slick by dropping off everything in front of the store and contacting the card company not really telling the whole story or sharing the contract. The issue is we NEVER documented what was dropped off. It could've been stolen etc. THEN when the card company sees the contract (we used actual 1 page contracts not these stupid small receipts) they deny the customer. The process could take days or weeks. We just took it in and held it until issue was settled and 100 percent of the time the dumb customers came back for the furniture. Explaining a contract that NO ONE reads (only lawyers read ours ironically enough) and then they sign and act surprised when they can't do what they want. He brought up a common point of the 3 day rule supposedly, however, it does not apply if you sign a contract... at least here in MA. That furniture store definitely could've won if they kept better records, better receipts, and not showing what they dropped off. Soon as they drop everything off then it's STILL THEIR PROPERTY. can't do anything with it.
This was a second hand store, NOT a regular store where items can be ordered.
Blah blah blah blah blah 🙄
@@getin3949 you do realize a contract is a contract right?
@@annettavicckies7445 boy move on. You probably got a mattress on the floor without sheets. Stfu dirty. Unless you got something to add to the convo then mind the business that pays you, dummy.
Thanks for this clear and informative explanation. The woman is a hustler. If the plaintiff had in fact made sexual advances, she should have canceled the sale. Both parties lost in this because the plaintiff only got back a part of what he paid, and no furniture.
Both wrong. At least he was honest. She was a bold faced liar, trying to blame her system for not having the receipts. I'm pretty sure that the IRS would be very interested in knowing about a business that has no record of what they sold and for how much.
If the business has no record then neither does the IRS.
How was he wrong??
@@ASmith-jn7kf because his receipt clearly said all sales final and, because he didn't like that, chose to ignore it. Even his credit card company said he was wrong once they saw the receipt.
@@bridyyc having the terms of a contract printed on the receipt after you made the purchase is not binding on the purchaser as someone mentioned. If you purchased a Toaster Oven at Walmart, paid for it got the receipt and at the bottom of the receipt was printed "Purchaser also agrees to purchase a 70 inch screen TV within 7 days" you think that's binding on you?
@@exoressdelivers70 what are you talking about? No one is suggesting that whatever is printed on a receipt becomes a binding contract for something completely unrelated. Business have the right to determine their return policy. There is NO legal obligation for a business to accept returns. She chose not to, and stated that on the receipt.
He sure did get his way today🤣🤣🤣
Damn he still lost over 3k on that furniture. As JJ said he should’ve accepted the 9 pieces that were available and sued for the cost of the other 5 pieces.
When I was working a furniture store, whoever picks up the furniture has to sign that it’s in good condition and all there before taking the furniture. If you don’t sign, you can’t leave with the furniture. If the mover had signed, he would’ve been the one liable for the mistake. I would never ever sign for someone else.
@@genesiscda4847 right
@@genesiscda4847 except they could just write on it that it’s incomplete and have them sign it. If they refuse then you’d be entitled to a refund since they refuse to deliver the items to you. But he screwed himself by jumping the gun on the cc company. They would’ve sided with him at that point if that was the first time they interacted.
The defendant is lying. That man ain't make a pass at her. She's just a thief. She took his money, then sold his furniture to someone else.
"I don't even like her!" 😂😂😂😂
He said “i don’t even like her” 😂😂😂
Yeah that “all sales are final” is always sketchy. It’s like they’re telling you “we have a license to steal”
Just wondering if she was made uncomfortable by those advancements when he asked for a refund why she just didn’t give it to him and be done with it? 🧐
"advancements" isn't a word
HILARIOUS, the man said I DON’T EVEN LIKE HER!😂😂😂😂
Really just be a law against all sales being final unless it is custom made to a customer.
Wow.....so he's still out $3,000.
Max amount judge judy can award is $5000, plaintiff would already know this before going on the show so I guess he was ok with it
@@semicron5159 right.
...and perhaps getting on the show was his only way of getting any money back.
So, $5k is better than $0
@3:10 - The look on Byrd’s face when he collects the last receipt from the plaintiff says it all! Lady, you’re full of sh*t! LOL!
😂🤣😂
Come on lady, just give the man his money back
Def is like a smiling sweet assassin 😂
Damn, didn’t see that ending coming 😂
The defendant is a scammer ,the man aint interested Lady .😂 Shes delusional.
Judge Judy and Byrd BOTH got Super Annoyed with this lady and her shenanigans lol🤣🤣
US consumer law must be very different from UK law. On the one hand, JJ referred to the bill of sale as a contract with all sales being final. On the other, the defendant had sold part of that inventory, surely breaking the terms of that contract? He was quite within his rights to reject a partial fulfillment.
Trying to say a gay guy hit on her PMSL
Furniture owner played herself by selling his furniture even if he did make unwanted advances. She should have said , Sir I’m good, take your furniture TODAY , AS IS, and beat it!
And the woman wasn't using seduction and flirting to make her own big sale? Lmao. "Unwanted advances" is a vague copout that states nothing and provides plausible deniability for her own grift.
People make advances every day, it's perfectly normal and natural. Just because the advance is unwanted doesn't make it creepy.
How can her receipts not have the amounts she sold items for? How does she keep records??!!
It's hilarious that she thinks he wants her!! It makes her look stupid, not him!
I am not sure how consignments work....can she tell the owner of the goods that she sold his/her item for $200 but she actually sold it for $300, then keep her 25% cut off $200 and give the owner of the item $150. If the store receipts have no amounts mentioned, she can make up whatever price to the owner, unless ofcourse her contract with the owners have a specific price and she can only sell it for that price.
@@idharudhar5985 true. How can the consignors trust her?
She had a copy of his receipt though..🤔
The IRS is going to love her
Hello prison
I'm a retired government auditor. I was thinking the state and feds would like to take a look at her books. The defendant is as crooked as a dog's hind leg.
@@danadyd59 exactly what I was thinking. I worked on POS systems and everything she said was a lie.
@@peryole I personally feel she was evading sales, state, and federal taxes based on her explanation of her computer system. And, she had it set up that way. What a crock of bs!
Really lady? What a cop out. She tried to hustle the Plaintiff. I almost sided with her until the end. What a dumb business woman.
They always say “oh he came on to me.” Like that has anything to do with selling his stuff
"not as well, this is nothing" That was clever...
Im sad the plaintiff still loss about 2k of the 8k on this scammer. She is despicable and he needs to be more careful.
Nobody:
Me to the defendant: GIRL BYE.
The delivery driver absolutely did the right thing. He was there to pick up 14 pieces. If he picked up the 9 pieces instead. Worst case scenario, the defendant could have accused the delivery driver of stealing the missing 5 items. Judge Judy is wrong! The agreement was 14 pieces of furniture. She breached the contract, by selling the 5 items and only providing 9 items out of the 14.
"I don't even like her."
I believed him. And I believe that JJ was right and awarded him the full amount! Great call JJ!
She was trying to double dip…hope the IRS saw this.