Ms. Riley was supposed to pay for the car.
The defendants held the car for a year.
They had an agreement.
Judge Judy calls it a sale agreement and a contract agreement.
She notes the contract does not state a time.
The Signature and the Time Frame
Judge Judy addresses the disputed signature.
She says, "Let's say it wasn't your signature."
She points out that, according to Ms. Riley, there was no time frame.
However, Ms. Riley purchased it.
She bought it.
Ms. Riley argues it was supposed to be a layaway.
She says products on layaway are kept in good faith.
Judge Judy challenges her to show where the contract says that.
Responsibility for the Car's Condition
Judge Judy states, "It's your car."
She asks if Ms. Riley wanted to keep it in good condition.
She suggests Ms. Riley should have bought a tarp for her car.
Ms. Riley asks if this applies while the car is on their lot.
Judge Judy confirms, "Yes.
Yes, it's your car."
She explains they cannot sell it to someone else.
If Ms. Riley wanted it indoors, she should have put it in the contract.
She compares it to putting in a 90-day payment clause.
Ms. Riley again denies writing that or that it is her signature.
The Verdict on the Money
Judge Judy firmly states, "You're not getting your money back."
She says she only needs to determine if Ms. Riley must buy the car.
That is the agreement.
The Car's Value and Resale
Ms. Riley does not want to buy the car.
The car has been on the lot for a year.
It is a year older.
The defendants have Ms. Riley's $2,800.
Judge Judy asks the defendant about the car.
It is a Volkswagen convertible.
She asks the bailiff to look up its blue book value.
Ms. Riley offers pictures of the car.
Judge Judy accepts them.
The defendant also has pictures and booking information.
Judge Judy asks if the car is "banged up."
The defendant says no, it is a reflection.
The bailiff provides the blue book value: $49.25.
Judge Judy's Final Ruling
Judge Judy calculates the value.
She says with $49.25 and $2,800, the defendants will make money.
She advises them to sell it to somebody else.
Otherwise, they would have lost money.
The defendant understands.
Judge Judy calls it unreasonable to expect them to hold property for a year.
She cannot determine if the signature is Ms. Riley's.
But she finds it unreasonable to buy a car, pay some money, and then pay it off "when I can."
She finds it unreasonable to then complain about the property not being covered.
She calls Ms. Riley's claim "ridiculous."
She repeats, "Your claim is ridiculous."
Ms. Riley will not get her deposit back.
The defendants' counterclaim for specific performance is noted.
They have agreed they can resell the car.
This avoids further burdening Ms. Riley.
Judge Judy believes they should do that.
They will sell the car and not lose money.
She dismisses Ms. Riley's case.
"We're done."
Watch the Full Judge Judy Case Below
See the full exchange.
Witness the signature dispute.
Scroll down.
Press play.
FULL VIDEO
CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE FULL VIDEO
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qb9ibHgsrNs
