FULL VIDEO AT THE END OF THE POST
Online Car Listing Leads to Dispute
Mr. McMahon, the plaintiff, saw a car advertised online.
The advertisement was placed by Mr. Grubba, the defendant.
Mr. McMahon contacted Mr. Grubba about the vehicle.
He expressed interest in purchasing the car.
The Non-Refundable Deposit
Mr. McMahon paid a $750 deposit to Mr. Grubba.
Mr. Grubba stated this deposit was non-refundable.
Mr. McMahon intended to travel to see the car.
He planned to finalize the purchase after viewing it.
Advertisement Taken Down
Mr. Grubba removed the car advertisement from the internet.
He did this based on Mr. McMahon's assurance.
Mr. McMahon had indicated he would buy the car.
The advertisement was taken down on October 17, 2019.
Plaintiff Fails to Appear
Mr. McMahon was scheduled to view the car on October 25, 2019.
He did not arrive on the agreed-upon date.
Mr. McMahon cited unforeseen travel circumstances.
He claimed a bus broke down and he missed a connection.
Communication After Missed Appointment
On October 26, 2019, at 5:00 AM, Mr. McMahon texted Mr. Grubba.
He informed Mr. Grubba that he could not make it.
Mr. McMahon suggested he could be there in a week.
He also mentioned checking other options.
Car Sold to Another Buyer
After Mr. McMahon failed to show up, Mr. Grubba sold the car.
The car was sold to another buyer named Ryan.
This sale occurred sometime after October 25, 2019.
The sale price was $5,000.
Plaintiff Seeks Deposit Return
Mr. McMahon sued Mr. Grubba for the $750 deposit.
He argued there was no formal agreement on the price.
Therefore, he believed no contract was formed.
He felt entitled to his deposit back due to his travel issues.
Defendant Claims Non-Refundable Deposit
Mr. Grubba maintained the $750 deposit was non-refundable.
He stated he took the car off the market.
This action was based on Mr. McMahon's commitment.
Mr. Grubba claimed he incurred a detriment by doing so.
Defendant's Price Claim Disputed
Mr. Grubba asserted the internet ad stated the price was firm.
Judge Judy reviewed the advertisement.
She noted the ad only said "recently reduced."
It did not state the price was firm.
Judge Judy Questions Price Agreement
Judge Judy asked if a price was set in any correspondence.
Mr. McMahon stated they never agreed on a price.
He explained he intended to see the car first.
Judge Judy found it illogical to put down a deposit without an agreed price.
The Art of Negotiating Car Prices
Judge Judy explained the common practice of negotiating used car prices.
She stated that people always negotiate the price of a used car.
She asked the gallery if anyone had bought a used car for the full asking price.
No one raised their hand.
Contract Elements Discussed
Judge Judy explained the requirements for a contract.
A contract needs an offer, an acceptance, and consideration.
She questioned whether these elements were fully met regarding the car's purchase price.
Mr. McMahon's intention to view the car first suggested no final acceptance.
Judge Judy's Assessment of Mr. Grubba's Demeanor
Judge Judy found Mr. Grubba's behavior in court irritating.
She called him a "jerk" multiple times.
She advised him that being annoying would not help his case.
She told him that even if he was right, his attitude made it harder.
Defendant's Detriment Considered
Judge Judy acknowledged Mr. Grubba acted to his detriment.
He took down the advertisement based on Mr. McMahon's assurance.
The ad was down for at least a week, possibly more.
This action showed Mr. Grubba relied on Mr. McMahon's commitment.
Plaintiff's Travel Excuses Dismissed
Judge Judy did not accept Mr. McMahon's travel excuses.
She stated there are many ways to get from one place to another.
She emphasized Mr. McMahon's obligation to be there on October 25th.
He had sent a $750 deposit, creating an expectation.
Financial Outcome of the Sale
Mr. Grubba sold the car for $5,000.
He claimed this was $500 less than his asking price.
However, he also kept Mr. McMahon's $750 deposit.
Judge Judy calculated Mr. Grubba's total earnings.
Unconscionable Profit
Judge Judy determined Mr. Grubba was financially ahead.
He received $5,000 from Ryan plus Mr. McMahon's $750 deposit.
This totaled $5,750 for a car he was asking $5,500 for.
She stated that keeping the full deposit made him $250 ahead.
The Ruling
Judge Judy found Mr. Grubba's actions unconscionable.
He profited from the situation by keeping the deposit and selling the car.
This effectively meant he made more than his original asking price.
Judgment was entered for the plaintiff, Mr. McMahon.
Final Award
Mr. Grubba was ordered to pay Mr. McMahon $250.
The case concluded with this award.