Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Plaintiff’s Closing Argument Stern
Similar to Plaintiff’s Closing Argument Stern (11)
Plaintiff’s Closing Argument Stern
- 3. Breach of Contract •Bowman •Disposal Would Not Leak if Properly Installed • Engineer • Hydrostatic Testing • Only person that tested the disposal
- 4. Breach of Contract •Bowman •Disposal Would Not Leak if Properly Installed • Tested for one hour • 20X the amount of normal pressure • Area where collar located capped
- 5. Breach of Contract •All Installations Guaranteed for a Year • Does not state that the garbage disposal must be new
- 6. Breach of Contract •All Installations Guaranteed for a Year • Does not say the defect must be reported to Norfolk within one year • Installation complete in October 2014 • Garbage disposal fitted on Friday, September 15, 2012 • Disposal failed before October 2013
- 7. Breach of Contract •All Installations Guaranteed for a Year • Does not state that the garbage disposal re-install is not covered
- 8. Breach of Contract •All Installations Guaranteed for a Year • Rosen Emails • September 25th
- 9. Breach of Contract •Workmanlike installation • Below standards • Required to properly tighten the Disposal • Did not properly tighten the Disposal • Extensive Damages
- 10. Breach of Contract •Bowman •CONCLUSION • NO LEAKS • Did not properly tighten the Disposal • Extensive Damages
- 11. Breach of Contract •All Installations Guaranteed for a Year • Disposal part of the installation • Installation complete in October 2014 • Garbage disposal fitted on Friday, September 15, 2012 • Disposal failed before October 2013
- 12. Negligence •Duty, Breach, Causation and Damages •Duty •Contract; Workmanlike installation
- 13. Negligence •Duty, Breach, Causation and Damages •Breach •Contract; Failed to install in a workmanlike manner
- 14. Negligence •Duty, Breach, Causation and Damages •Causation •Disposal leaked •Loose collar
- 15. Negligence •Duty, Breach, Causation and Damages • Collar rusty •Water stains •Stark •Knew that there was a disposal leak on inspection
- 16. Hard Facts •Two Experts •Commonsense •No leaks in 2005, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, or 11
- 17. Hard Facts •Disposal fine to Stark in 2012 •Stark cannot recall telling Stern to use New Disposal •Because: •No leaks in 2005, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, or 11 with the Disposal
- 18. Hard Facts •No mechanical defects •No evidence that someone hit it •No evidence that •Leaks into basement occurred right below kitchen sink area
- 19. Preponderance Standard Met • More likely than not that NHI breached the contract and committed negligence
- 20. Negligent Misrepresentation •False information •Did not use reasonable care •Reliance •Damages •Actual damages and any foreseeable damages
- 21. Negligent Misrepresentation •False information • HIC # •Norfolk Not a Home Improvement Contractor
- 22. Negligent Misrepresentation •Warranty Against Defects Occurring within one Year of the installation •Now: They claim warranty does not cover disposal (parts)
- 23. Negligent Misrepresentation •Now: They claim NHI must be contacted within one year •Now: They claim warranty is based on date disposal was installed
- 25. Good Faith and Fair Dealing •No offers to fully-compensate Stern •Sent a carpenter •Sent Stark •No hydrostatic testing
- 26. Good Faith and Fair Dealing •Shifting warranty explanations •Only date NHI lacks is date Stark installed disposal
- 27. Damages • $16,193.83 Actual • $6,000.00 eating expenses • Dislodged from House for 6 weeks • Damages