FULL VIDEO AT THE END OF THE POST
A Sweet Start Turns Sour
Steven, the plaintiff, brought a claim against Mr. Paul, the defendant.
Steven alleged he made a $1,000 loan to Mr. Paul.
This money was intended for candy inventory.
The agreement also involved a 50/50 partnership.
Steven was to promote the candy on his social media.
Mr. Paul, however, claimed it was a business agreement, not a loan.
He also counterclaimed that Steven slandered him.
This alleged slander, Mr. Paul stated, caused him to lose business.
Steven countered that Mr. Paul failed to fulfill orders.
He also claimed Mr. Paul blocked customers.
This led to customers demanding refunds from Steven.
Mr. Paul's counterclaim included a loss of thousands in projected profits.
He also claimed to have received death threats due to Steven's social media posts.
The Initial Investment
Steven testified that he gave Mr. Paul $1,000.
This occurred on September 6, 2019.
The purpose was to form a 50/50 partnership for a candy business.
Steven had a large following on social media.
He was going to help promote Mr. Paul's candy.
Judge Judy asked Steven what he was supposed to get out of it.
Steven initially stated it was just a loan.
He then corrected himself, saying it was a 50/50 partnership.
Steven confirmed he made an investment in the business.
He provided a document for this partnership.
Judge Judy reviewed the document.
She then clarified that it was a business agreement, not a loan.
Steven agreed with this assessment.
Partnership Details and Expectations
Steven explained that he and Mr. Paul were not close friends.
Someone brought them together.
Steven had many followers who trusted his postings.
He transferred $1,000 from his bank account to Mr. Paul.
Steven expected a 50/50 partnership in return.
The agreement was made on September 6, 2019.
After this date, Mr. Paul began taking orders for candy.
He charged credit cards and PayPal for these orders.
Steven expected access to all business accounts.
However, no written agreement for this was presented.
Steven stated that Mr. Paul agreed to give him access.
He showed text messages where Mr. Paul allegedly said he would work on it.
Judge Judy stated that written contracts supersede text messages for modifications.
Unfulfilled Orders and Customer Complaints
Steven claimed that Mr. Paul did not fulfill orders.
This led to customers demanding refunds from Steven.
Steven presented screenshots of customer complaints.
These complaints detailed unfulfilled orders.
They also showed Mr. Paul allegedly blocking people requesting refunds.
Steven's girlfriend also tried to contact Mr. Paul regarding the business issues.
She was a close family friend of Mr. Paul.
Steven stated that orders were coming in as expected.
However, it became a "mess."
Customers were texting Steven for refunds.
Steven claimed Mr. Paul was not responding to them.
He also alleged Mr. Paul was blocking people.
Steven felt these customers were now coming after him.
He tried to address this with Mr. Paul.
Steven reminded Mr. Paul they were partners.
He said it was "my business too now."
Mr. Paul's response was that he was "just busy."
Mr. Paul's Counterclaims
Mr. Paul claimed Steven maliciously slandered him on social media.
He stated that Steven's video caused all orders to cease.
Mr. Paul alleged a loss of thousands of dollars in projected profits.
He also claimed to have received death threats due to Steven's posts.
Judge Judy questioned Mr. Paul's claim of making thousands of dollars.
She pointed out that he had asked Steven for another loan to pay rent.
Mr. Paul insisted he was making money.
Judge Judy reiterated that if he was making thousands, he wouldn't need a loan for rent.