FULL VIDEO AT THE END OF THIS POST
THIS EXCUSE DID NOT GO WELL IN COURT!
A Pool Resurfacing Dispute Lands in Court
Imagine hiring a company for a major home improvement.
Then imagine the job is not done right.
Now imagine facing Judge Judy.
The Plaintiff Seeks Justice for Her Pool
Ms. Sweat is the plaintiff.
She hired Mr. and Mrs. Bueno.
They own a pool service company.
Ms. Sweat initially used them for regular maintenance.
Then she hired them for a larger job.
She wanted her pool resurfaced.
She claims the work was not completed satisfactorily.
She also says they failed to fulfill a subsequent agreement.
This agreement was to fix the imperfections.
The Defendants Claim the Job Was Done
Mr. and Mrs. Bueno are the defendants.
Mr. Bueno states the big job was a resurfacing job.
It took place in July 2017.
The price for this job was $5,125.
Ms. Sweat paid this amount in full.
Judge Judy asks if the pool has been resurfaced.
Mr. Bueno initially says yes.
He claims it was fully completed.
Judge Judy Confronts a Contradiction
Judge Judy then points out a major issue.
Mr. Bueno's own sworn answer states otherwise.
His written statement says he did not finish the job.
Specifically, it mentions April 2018.
This was almost a year after the initial payment.
Mr. Bueno tries to explain.
He claims he was unable to finish.
He says Ms. Sweat wanted a different route for the second coat of paint.
Why Resurface Twice in One Year?
Judge Judy questions this explanation.
She asks why a pool would need resurfacing twice in one year.
Mrs. Bueno then offers her perspective.
She states there were imperfections in the original resurfacing.
She attributes this to Ms. Sweat's request.
Ms. Sweat wanted the work done at night.
This was to speed up the process.
Mrs. Bueno says they advised against it.
She cites heat and lack of light as reasons.
Clarifying the Working Conditions
Judge Judy clarifies Mrs. Bueno's statement.
She notes the job had to be done early morning.
Or it had to be done when the sun went down.
This contradicts Mr. Bueno's earlier implication.
He suggested Ms. Sweat was being unreasonable.
Judge Judy states the job wasn't done satisfactorily.
She says money needs to be returned.
The August 24th Contract Emerges
Ms. Sweat presents an additional contract.
It is dated August 24, 2017.
Mr. Bueno signed this contract.
It stated he would return in November.
He was to finish the pool.
The contract specified draining the pool.
It also included adding two coats of paint.
Finally, it mentioned adding startup chemicals.
A Claim of Delay and a Lack of Written Proof
Mr. Bueno claims Ms. Sweat said it could wait.
He says she suggested waiting until the following year.
Judge Judy emphasizes a crucial point.
Any modification to a contract needs to be in writing.
It must be signed by both parties.
Mr. Bueno did not have such a document.
He then states he couldn't complete the job.
He claims Ms. Sweat changed her mind about the color.
This happened when he went back.
The Unfulfilled Agreement
Judge Judy asks if Mr. Bueno drained the pool.
This was part of the August 24th contract.
Mr. Bueno confirms he drained the pool.
But he did not put on two coats of paint.
He says Ms. Sweat called and wanted a different color.
Judge Judy states that Mr. Bueno did not fulfill the August 24th contract.
This means Ms. Sweat should get some money back.
Breaking Down the Uncompleted Work
Mr. Bueno lists the initial work done.
This included draining, acid washing, setting primer, and painting.
It also involved filling the pool and a final walkthrough.
Judge Judy reminds him of the August 24th contract.
That contract was to fix the work he had done before.
She asks for a cost breakdown of the uncompleted work.
This is from the August 24th contract.
Draining a pool costs $350.
Adding chemicals costs $200.
Two coats of paint cost $1,000.
The total cost of the uncompleted work is calculated.
It comes to $1,550.
The Final Calculation
Judge Judy clarifies the acid wash and drain.
These were part of the first job.
They were not part of the second job.
The second job was outlined in the August 24th contract.
Judge Judy confirms Mr. Bueno did not drain the pool.
He did not paint two coats.
He did not add startup chemicals after August 24th.
The total cost of the work he didn't do is $1,550.
Watch the Full Judge Judy Case Below
See how this pool dispute unfolds.
The details of the contracts are key.
Scroll down.
Press play.
FULL VIDEO
CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE FULL VIDEO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uZmjOwAvvqU
CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE FULL VIDEO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AOQ53G_uh0
