FULL VIDEO AT THE END OF THE POST
Car Purchase and Initial Breakdown
Miss Sydney purchased a 20-year-old car.
She paid $2,100 for the vehicle.
The car was running when she bought it.
She started purchasing the vehicle in April 2016.
Payments were completed in December 2016.
The car's transmission went out in late April 2017.
Seeking a Mechanic
Miss Sydney did not take the car to a shop.
The defendant, a mechanic, towed the vehicle.
She did not know him before.
A friend of her fiance recommended the defendant.
Miss Sydney knew the car needed a new transmission.
The defendant said he could install a new transmission.
The Initial Quote
The mechanic quoted $800 for parts and labor.
This quote was for the transmission replacement.
Miss Sydney confirmed this amount.
The defendant initially agreed with the $800 quote.
He later stated it ended up needing a transfer case.
Judge Judy clarified the initial agreement.
The defendant confirmed he said $800 for parts and labor.
Payment and Car Pickup
The initial conversation was over the phone.
Miss Sydney recalled the date as Wednesday, May 10th.
They waited two days for her fiance to be paid.
Her fiance gave the defendant $400 upfront cash.
The defendant picked up the vehicle on May 12th.
The defendant confirmed receiving the $400.
Communication Breakdown
Miss Sydney and her fiance did not hear from the mechanic for about a week.
They tried texting him.
They did not receive a response.
They eventually spoke to him on June 6th, 2017.
The Transfer Case Issue
On June 6th, the defendant stated he found a transmission.
He said it did not match the car's transfer case.
He claimed he needed to find a new transfer case.
Miss Sydney's fiance was later told a transfer case would cost $500.
This $500 quote included a warranty.
Miss Sydney wanted the defendant to find the case.
She wanted him to confirm he had the case before giving more money.
She had already given him $400.
She had not seen any results from that money.
Defendant's Incarceration Claim
Miss Sydney next heard that the defendant was in jail.
She did not hear this directly from him.
His employee told her about the incarceration.
The defendant denied being incarcerated.
He stated he did not know where that information came from.
Miss Sydney explained who told her.
A young lady, the defendant's employee, informed her.
This conversation happened in person.
Discovering the Car's Absence
Miss Sydney went to the defendant's house.
The defendant worked out of his yard, which was also his shop.
Her fiance had told her the car was no longer there.
She went to see what was happening.
She knocked on the door.
There was no answer at first.
This occurred in late July.
Employee's Explanation
Miss Sydney's fiance saw someone in the window.
Miss Sydney initially dismissed this.
A little later, a woman pulled up in a black car.
The defendant's mechanic came from the back.
The mechanic informed them the defendant was locked up.
The reason given was child support in Kentucky, Ken County.
Miss Sydney had text messages referring to this information.
The mechanic also said she was going to visit him the next day.
Plaintiff's Fiance Clarifies Timeline
The plaintiff's fiance intervened.
He stated they spoke to the mechanic again in June.
They were told the defendant was in jail.
They were also informed their vehicle had been impounded.
This explained why the car was no longer in the yard.
Judge Judy Questions the Defendant's Credibility
Judge Judy addressed the defendant.
She reminded him he initially denied receiving any money.
The defendant then admitted to receiving $400.
Judge Judy called this a "fib."
She emphasized the defendant's responsibility.
As a mechanic, he should have known about part compatibility.
He should have informed the client of additional costs upfront.
The Defendant's Defense
The defendant claimed the plaintiff did not provide additional money.
He stated the transfer case was necessary for the repair.
He said the car was impounded because it sat for two months.
He claimed the plaintiff did not provide funds for the transfer case.
He also stated he explained the plaintiff could purchase the transfer case.
He said the plaintiff could bring it to the shop.
Judge Judy's Scrutiny of the Repair Process
Judge Judy questioned the defendant's actions.
She pointed out that he purchased a transmission that did not fit.
It did not fit with another working part in the car.
She stated this was the defendant's problem.
She reiterated that he is not a mechanic.
She asked if a new transmission never fits with a different transfer case.
If so, he should have stated the job was more than $800 initially.
She suggested it could have been a $1,200 job.
The defendant claimed he did tell them.
Judge Judy dismissed this claim.
The Verdict
Judge Judy ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
She stated the defendant had a responsibility to return the car.
She found the defendant owed Miss Sydney $2,100 for the car.
She also found he owed the $400 deposit.
The total judgment was $2,500.
The defendant had a counter claim.
Judge Judy dismissed the counter claim.
Final Remarks
Judge Judy reiterated the defendant's responsibility.
He accepted the car as a bailment.
He told them it needed a new transmission.
If he bought a transmission that did not fit, it was his problem.
He should have picked a compatible transmission.
Alternatively, he should have stated the need for additional parts and costs.
She concluded that his actions were illogical unless he was a "hustler."
The judgment was for $2,500 for the plaintiff.
The case was concluded.