I hate the argument that just because you are a tall person that you aren't under duress. Just because you are big, or tall, doesn't mean you handle conflicts well and can fight. You can feel threatened and worry for your own safety and the safety of your family.
Agreed! Some people, regardless of size, will avoid any potential conflict when they've seen behaviors escalate from that person previously. The plaintiff looks like a hot head, and I don't quite follow how he was awarded any additional monies. 🤔
Not an excuse whatsoever in a simple contract dispute with a friend. She should have shut down that intimidation talk IMMEDIATELY when he brought that up.
I know a few people who resemble the plaintiff....all have over bearing personalities....it rattles people lol...I get what the defendant is saying. Some of us chose to disassociate...doesn't make them bad people
Yep. And all over a totally ridiculous claim in the first place! If someone buys you out of your interest in something, you’re out! Doesn’t matter if it’s a business, a house, a car or a boat - once you’re bought out, you’re out! Period! No profit for you. If the boat went up in value, you should negotiate the buyout to cover your share of any potential profit. If the other partner doesn’t want to go for that, then you stay partners. That’s how this works. But if you want out that badly, you’re probably going to pay a price for that.
That was exactly the impression that I got, too. She looks defeated and frightened. The plaintiff says that the defendant is making "zings" at him in court when he did that to the defendant multiple times.
@suzannecrum9702 They're so poor over there, anybody with a job here, is rich to them. That's why is so easy to buy people & human traffic from those countries. I'm not sure how it's allowed to be legal here in the USA.
The defendant said: "I've seen him by his own actions, I seen his character, and I no longer wanted him around my son." The defendant not wanting the plantiff around his six year old son tells me he discovered something new about the plantiff that he no longer trusted him. Perhaps the way he treats his wife, who knows. They both were being careful what they said about each other.
At the end, the plaintiff said the defendant was saying/doing things at work to get him fired. That's not very careful to me. That's malicious and defaming.
@@KAKE-26- you’re actually in the wrong. Its the meaning of words. He uses LIBEL incorrectly. Libel is writen defamatory. Slander is the verbal part. He does not use other words correctly. Next time, SHUT YOUR MOUTH IF YOU PLAN TO BE RUDE JUST FOR HER POINTING OUT HES A COMPLETE IDIOT! We are not structoring sentences buddy!
OMG Judge!! 3400/2 = 1700 each. But defendant already paid 1500 to plaintiff, so judgement should be 200. There. Fixed it. The accounting of input costs are all equal (repairs, purchase) so the math is easy here. Or .... 3400 - 2000 = 1400 profit or 700 each. Profit _ input costs = 700 + 1000 = 1700 each. P already paid 1500=> 1700-1500= 200 judgement! There fixed it again. Yes, I'm a CPA
Yeah, her math was all the way wrong. The plaintiff even admitted when he filed suit that he received an additional 750 on top of the 1500, so he received way more profit than he was owed, and I fully believe the defendant spent more money to fix parts up, so the defendant ended up in the negative.
Yeah, no. It wasn't a down payment. The agreement was to SPLIT the profit. If I pay $2250 for something and sell it for $3400, my profit is $1150, and half that is $575.
When are people going to learn not to buy large objects like cars , boats & other things together... It's a recipe for a fight, when one decides to sell , or want to buy the other out... Then the fight begins!!! Keeps judges in business!!! That's how friends become UNFRIENDED!!!
Maybe I'm just too tired to think clearly right now but the judge's math seems wrong on this one. They both initially invested $750.00. The defendant then paid the plantif a total of $2250.00. Ignoring the repair costs, the defendant has now made a total investment of $3000.00 in the boat (his original $750.00 + $2250.00). He sold it for $3400.00 earning a profit of only $400.00. Either way you look at it, the judgement ended up with the plantif receiving a total of $2826.00 from a $3400.00 sale. That sure doesn't seem like a fair and equal profit to me.
The end result is wrong. The 2250 is the original 750 the defendant gave the plaintiff for the original boat purchase plus another 1500 when the defendant bought the boat outright from the plaintiff. So at this point the defendant is in for 2250 and the plaintiff has 750 profit. Add another 500 sale profit and the plaintiff made 1250 total and the defendant is still 1750 in the hole and no boat.
@@WillGGGNo. The $750 was only for half, because the plaintiff paid full price originally for the boat, because defendant didn't have the $ to pitch in originally.
defendant knew the dude he was selling it to was going to immediately turn around and sell it again for more and he would make money again. they worked it out beforehand for sure.
Just because a man is taller doesn't mean he is a fighter .. The shorter guy looks like a tough guy with a temper !!! Sadly this was a bad idea as it ruined a friendship !!
YES!!! As soon as I saw her I came to the comments. I was like she looks so uncomfortable, and so out of place. And she didn’t say a peep throughout the entire case. But she is avoiding eye contact, saying anything, the way she was standing and had her hands fidgeting with her wrists and arms, you can tell she’s nervous and/or her anxiety is high. But just her posture and lack of eye contact shows she’s very closed off and doesn’t want to be talked to or approached.
ANNNNDDDD who is using the wrong words as well! ’hes libel to me’ 😣🤨😳🤯 so the plaintiff is saying that the defendant is writing all over him with lies?!?! He’s stupid.
That was longest exit interview I’ve ever seen, good grief. 😩And to those saying the girl looked distressed; she might not even speak English that well and just really doesn’t want to be there on national TV.
I get irrationally irratable when listening to certain plantiffs and defendants. These guys both sound so whiny and privileged at the same time it hurts
"...we are in the boat business...I'm a truck driver..." bahahah wtf is that. Right buddy, I watch a lot of people's court so that means I'm a lawyer right
They should have sold the boat(to someone they didn't know)and split the profit, done deal. That way, there are no hard feelings, that one made more money than the other. Common sense. This whole deal seems more complicated than it needed to be. The Defendant claiming "duress" and fear for his family make me think HE DID pull something shady. They were supposed to be friends for goodness sake.
Someone please explain this to me, bc the calculations are off to me. They spent 1000 each to buy and fix the boat. He sold it for 3400, so the profit is 1400. But he gave the man 1500+750 (2250)... so out of the 3400, the plaintiff got 2250 while the defendant got 1150. The plaintiff received 1250 in profit (2250 minus his 1000 investment), while the defendant received only 150 in profit (1150 minus1000 investment)... But I also believe he did pay the additional 450 to fix it, so he basically paid in 1450, while only receiving 1150 (meaning he's in the negative 300, before the judgement)... Or did I miss something completely? Either way, the defendants lack of anger and reaction at the end makes me believe he did in fact sell the boat for way more profit than he admitted. I bet he already had a buyer when he made the deal for 1500+750 in the contract, and knew he would make a large profit. If he lost profit or ended up in the negative, then he would have been quick to point it out, which he didn't.
DID THIS IDIIOOOTTTT JUDGE JUST CALL THE PLAINTIFF “DUDE” 😮 I DONT CARE WHAT DRESS/ROBE YOUR WEARING TODAY YOU HAVE SOME RESPECT AND SPEAK LIKE YOU HAVE SOME RESPECT. I WISH HE WOULD OF CALLED HER DUDE BACK. THE AUDACITYYYY! IN ORDER TO RECEIVE RESPECT U NEED TO GIVE RESPECT.
@@Sugarplum33 Ah. Ha - hard to notice her except at the beginning and then again until right at the end. I can see why someone would call that outfit inappropriate for court.
The judge asks a question to the defendant and then doesn’t shut up long enough to let him answer. Just talks over him and moves on. Are we getting the facts or is she just creating her own narrative?
It is obvious the "old man" is a complete liar. He could have just split the profit. People they work with all were a part of this whole thing. The boat was sold at the profit of 6500.00.
Yeah, he for sure sold it at 6500, like the plaintiff believes. That's why the defendant was ok with the verdict and never got angry at the plaintiff winning so much. He claims the plaintiff received 1500+750, and then won over 500 in judgement, so the plaintiff made over 2800 out of a 3400. That means the defendant only received 600 from the sell, which doesn't even cover his initial investment of 750 (let alone his 450 repair cost and other 250 repair cost). He didn't get angry or even point that out, so he for sure sold it at 6500, like the plaintiff believes.
My thing is the plaintiff already got a profit when the defendant bought him out being that he paid $750 the repairs $250 equal $1000 if the defendant paid him $1500 he already have a profit of $500 but if they go off their contract if the defendant sold it for $3400 half of that would be $1700 minus the $1500 that the plaintiff already received would leave a balance of $200 that the defendant would have had to pay. The plaintiff ended up walking away with a total of $2000 at least while the defendant did not.
If you do the math correctly, the plaintiff must have received 200 dollars from the defendant. At the time of the separation, the plaintiff made $750 and at the time of the final sale, the defendant made $1150. 750+200=950 for plaintiff and 1150-200=950 for defendant. Come on judge, pay the defendant the difference out of your pocket. $376 LOL
At 11:12 she says then don’t sign it. But I thought the issue was that he didn’t sign it and just wrote out what the guy wanted because he was afraid of him.
Just because someone is taller than someone, does not mean a smaller statured person can not be intimidating and threatening!! Cone on Judge that attitude is ridiculous!
Judge M, the size of the man has nothing to do with his ability to defend himself unless he is trained in self-defense. In addition, size has no boundaries if weapons are involved not to mention threats to one's family. That argument doesn't hold water. The defendant could definitely feel duress. The plaintiff is 100% intimidating - his stance, his facial expression.
I own %50 and you own %50 of something!!!! your half is sold for $1500, so my half worths $1500 , total of $3000!!!! Judge maid a mistake!!! $3000 - 3400 =$400 And divided that by 2 is $200 owed!!!
Such repetitive testimony! And shame on the judge for her statement that, due to his height, the defendant shouldn't have been intimidated by the plaintiff (not that I believe that he was). People can - and do - hurt others who are bigger. Or a smaller person could have a crackpotted personality, and be the type to burn another person's home if they're angry.
Nevermind the stupidity of going partners on a vehicle or vessel in the first place.. but why would you go partners on something as cheap as $1,500? And a toy at that?? Come on, what do you think is going to happen??
I hate the argument that just because you are a tall person that you aren't under duress. Just because you are big, or tall, doesn't mean you handle conflicts well and can fight. You can feel threatened and worry for your own safety and the safety of your family.
Exactly!
Agreed! Some people, regardless of size, will avoid any potential conflict when they've seen behaviors escalate from that person previously. The plaintiff looks like a hot head, and I don't quite follow how he was awarded any additional monies. 🤔
Well said. I said something similar but not as well as you.
Size does pay a big part in it though.
Not an excuse whatsoever in a simple contract dispute with a friend. She should have shut down that intimidation talk IMMEDIATELY when he brought that up.
Just because he’s tall doesn’t mean he can’t be intimidated. Her husband is tall and I don’t think he could bust a grape 😂
Exactly!
😅😅😅 shots FIRED 😂
😂😂😂
😂😂😂
I can see how the old man can be intimidated by the other guy, the other guy is very greedy greedy greedy greedy
I know a few people who resemble the plaintiff....all have over bearing personalities....it rattles people lol...I get what the defendant is saying. Some of us chose to disassociate...doesn't make them bad people
The plaintiff gives "I'll fight you" vibes. He's girlfriend looks frightened too. I can totally understand the defendants "duress".
I absolutely hate the "friend or no friend" thing. The plaintiff destroyed a 20 year friendship for $500
They weren’t really friends to begin with
The friendship was over long before that
DON'T BLAME THE PLAINTIFF OBVIOUSLY HE WAS OWED $$$ SO IT FALLS ON THE DEFENDANT STOP MAKING EXCUSES
Yep. And all over a totally ridiculous claim in the first place! If someone buys you out of your interest in something, you’re out! Doesn’t matter if it’s a business, a house, a car or a boat - once you’re bought out, you’re out! Period! No profit for you. If the boat went up in value, you should negotiate the buyout to cover your share of any potential profit. If the other partner doesn’t want to go for that, then you stay partners. That’s how this works. But if you want out that badly, you’re probably going to pay a price for that.
Once he bought him out that was a done deal..
This is crazy.
Except that, they had an agreement, since they both put work into it, that if there's a profit in the future, they split it.
My Dad told me a long time ago that you don’t have friends when it comes to money. Things like this don’t work out well too often.
The plaintiffs wife looks like she was being held prisoner
That was exactly the impression that I got, too. She looks defeated and frightened.
The plaintiff says that the defendant is making "zings" at him in court when he did that to the defendant multiple times.
Yes she look scared
haha, she knows she's gonna be in trouble because he didn't get what he wanted from the case
Also,he is much older than the lady with him.She must be with him for the bucks.As he us not appealing at all.
@suzannecrum9702 They're so poor over there, anybody with a job here, is rich to them. That's why is so easy to buy people & human traffic from those countries. I'm not sure how it's allowed to be legal here in the USA.
The defendant said: "I've seen him by his own actions, I seen his character, and I no longer wanted him around my son." The defendant not wanting the plantiff around his six year old son tells me he discovered something new about the plantiff that he no longer trusted him. Perhaps the way he treats his wife, who knows. They both were being careful what they said about each other.
At the end, the plaintiff said the defendant was saying/doing things at work to get him fired. That's not very careful to me. That's malicious and defaming.
The plaintiff is petty…just petty. He is a sad little man. I
Per the agreement…plaintiff got too much IMHO
Plaintiff needs to stop using words he has no idea how to use. At the end, when talking to moderator. “He proves he’s being libel to me!”
I’d check your own imperfect use of grammar, before coming for others.
😬
@@KAKE-26- you’re actually in the wrong. Its the meaning of words. He uses LIBEL incorrectly. Libel is writen defamatory. Slander is the verbal part. He does not use other words correctly. Next time, SHUT YOUR MOUTH IF YOU PLAN TO BE RUDE JUST FOR HER POINTING OUT HES A COMPLETE IDIOT!
We are not structoring sentences buddy!
@@KAKE-26He should've used a semicolon and a comma, instead of periods? Ok, grammar police. That's better than mixing up libel and liable, isn't it?
Plaintiff acts like a total control freak, what he says goes and you can forget about it,he’s a one way street and that girl looks terrified
Like a 90 day fiancee who's stuck with a jerk scared
This case was like a bad day in the accounting office 😵💫
Omg yasssss I'm over here like wtf
OMG Judge!! 3400/2 = 1700 each. But defendant already paid 1500 to plaintiff, so judgement should be 200. There. Fixed it. The accounting of input costs are all equal (repairs, purchase) so the math is easy here. Or .... 3400 - 2000 = 1400 profit or 700 each. Profit _ input costs = 700 + 1000 = 1700 each. P already paid 1500=> 1700-1500= 200 judgement! There fixed it again. Yes, I'm a CPA
I'm not an accountant but definitely knew the judge's math is wrong.
Yeah, her math was all the way wrong. The plaintiff even admitted when he filed suit that he received an additional 750 on top of the 1500, so he received way more profit than he was owed, and I fully believe the defendant spent more money to fix parts up, so the defendant ended up in the negative.
Yep
It is not a pure mathematical issue. The law impacts the factors.
Yeah, no. It wasn't a down payment. The agreement was to SPLIT the profit.
If I pay $2250 for something and sell it for $3400, my profit is $1150, and half that is $575.
The plaintiff gives off money hungry.. sorry to say.
Exactly
When are people going to learn not to buy large objects like cars , boats & other things together... It's a recipe for a fight, when one decides to sell , or want to buy the other out... Then the fight begins!!! Keeps judges in business!!! That's how friends become UNFRIENDED!!!
Certain things you should never do with a friend and buying a large purchase is one of those things.
This case is stupid! Plaintiff shouldn't get anything
The girl with the plaintiff is either mortified to be on tv.....or she's being held against her will. Anyone else notice that?
Judge didn’t care.
I wonder if that’s how the defendant was feeling?
Mail order bride
Correct Philipana overseas bride, i have one to..
@@matthewmorales94 how do I get one?
Maybe I'm just too tired to think clearly right now but the judge's math seems wrong on this one. They both initially invested $750.00. The defendant then paid the plantif a total of $2250.00. Ignoring the repair costs, the defendant has now made a total investment of $3000.00 in the boat (his original $750.00 + $2250.00). He sold it for $3400.00 earning a profit of only $400.00. Either way you look at it, the judgement ended up with the plantif receiving a total of $2826.00 from a $3400.00 sale. That sure doesn't seem like a fair and equal profit to me.
The end result is wrong. The 2250 is the original 750 the defendant gave the plaintiff for the original boat purchase plus another 1500 when the defendant bought the boat outright from the plaintiff. So at this point the defendant is in for 2250 and the plaintiff has 750 profit. Add another 500 sale profit and the plaintiff made 1250 total and the defendant is still 1750 in the hole and no boat.
@@WillGGGi don't understand, and that's ok i'm not ruling on anything😂
@@WillGGGNo. The $750 was only for half, because the plaintiff paid full price originally for the boat, because defendant didn't have the $ to pitch in originally.
I came to say the same, it didn't make sense to me, maybe it was edited wrong cuz the defendant didn't complain about it 🤷🏽♀️ lol idk
defendant knew the dude he was selling it to was going to immediately turn around and sell it again for more and he would make money again. they worked it out beforehand for sure.
What is up with lady with plaintiff? Blink if you need help!
The winner doesn't think he's a terrible person , but everybody else does
Both of these guys are special.
Just because a man is taller doesn't mean he is a fighter .. The shorter guy looks like a tough guy with a temper !!! Sadly this was a bad idea as it ruined a friendship !!
22:37 there’s something sus about her 🤔 she looks very uncomfortable has she even talked once??? Why is she even there?
YES!!! As soon as I saw her I came to the comments. I was like she looks so uncomfortable, and so out of place. And she didn’t say a peep throughout the entire case. But she is avoiding eye contact, saying anything, the way she was standing and had her hands fidgeting with her wrists and arms, you can tell she’s nervous and/or her anxiety is high. But just her posture and lack of eye contact shows she’s very closed off and doesn’t want to be talked to or approached.
What a long boring case, the plaintiff is petty
The plaintiff has a desperation in his eyes. He was willing to lose a friendship to snake a little more money out of a deal.
Should have had him sign a receipt that said this supercedes all previous agreements. Simple and done.
The word is spelled "supersedes." Strange but true.
The plaintiff is using words he doesn’t understand
She looks scared to death!!!
She is …prob in many ways
I just don't trust the Plaintiff. He comes off of a money grabbing liar
ANNNNDDDD who is using the wrong words as well! ’hes libel to me’ 😣🤨😳🤯 so the plaintiff is saying that the defendant is writing all over him with lies?!?! He’s stupid.
@@RileyCullen1He said, libel, but meant liable.
the judge messed that ruling up.
That was longest exit interview I’ve ever seen, good grief. 😩And to those saying the girl looked distressed; she might not even speak English that well and just really doesn’t want to be there on national TV.
"Proof is what I go on, dude!" Every judge needs a shirt that says that 😆
I get irrationally irratable when listening to certain plantiffs and defendants. These guys both sound so whiny and privileged at the same time it hurts
This was a very civilized case. They seem like decent, honest men.
If the plantiff was paid and 'bought out', he is owed nothing more! Zero.
She neglected to take in the fact that the Defendant had an initial invbestment of 1000 dollars. He should of gotten 75.00
The defendant specifically said the plaintiff denies that that happened and that he had no proof on his end. What did you expect the judge to do? 🤷
Well that boat sailed😂
Good one 😂😅😂
All of this over a boat that neither of you have? Lost the whole relationship for mothing
Both old men are a mess after all these years. Took advantage of each other over a boat.
This is one of the reasons why I would never buy anything with anyone
They ended their friendship over $576.00!
It doesn't seem like the kind of friendship that is worth maintaining based on this.
They more ended it over the plaintiff being dangerous to the defendant’s child.
I think the judge got this one wrong
I’ve never seen Doug at a loss for words 🤣🤣🤣. Normally he’s good with wrapping up little tantrums.
Does the plaintiffs lady know this is a court and inappropriate wardrobe?
Sounds like EGO, ED and COKE 👩🏿⚖️
Why are these people willing to destroy a friendship over money??
Friends fighting over a few hundred dollars is just sad
Once again money ruined a long term relationship and for such a small amount too...
Never get into any business deals with a friend who you also work with!😂
Is the girl with the plaintiff his daughter? She looks very young.
"...we are in the boat business...I'm a truck driver..." bahahah wtf is that. Right buddy, I watch a lot of people's court so that means I'm a lawyer right
Mailorder bride. She has to be.
They should have sold the boat(to someone they didn't know)and split the profit, done deal. That way, there are no hard feelings, that one made more money than the other. Common sense. This whole deal seems more complicated than it needed to be. The Defendant claiming "duress" and fear for his family make me think HE DID pull something shady. They were supposed to be friends for goodness sake.
Someone please explain this to me, bc the calculations are off to me. They spent 1000 each to buy and fix the boat. He sold it for 3400, so the profit is 1400. But he gave the man 1500+750 (2250)... so out of the 3400, the plaintiff got 2250 while the defendant got 1150. The plaintiff received 1250 in profit (2250 minus his 1000 investment), while the defendant received only 150 in profit (1150 minus1000 investment)... But I also believe he did pay the additional 450 to fix it, so he basically paid in 1450, while only receiving 1150 (meaning he's in the negative 300, before the judgement)... Or did I miss something completely?
Either way, the defendants lack of anger and reaction at the end makes me believe he did in fact sell the boat for way more profit than he admitted. I bet he already had a buyer when he made the deal for 1500+750 in the contract, and knew he would make a large profit. If he lost profit or ended up in the negative, then he would have been quick to point it out, which he didn't.
DID THIS IDIIOOOTTTT JUDGE JUST CALL THE PLAINTIFF “DUDE” 😮 I DONT CARE WHAT DRESS/ROBE YOUR WEARING TODAY YOU HAVE SOME RESPECT AND SPEAK LIKE YOU HAVE SOME RESPECT. I WISH HE WOULD OF CALLED HER DUDE BACK. THE AUDACITYYYY! IN ORDER TO RECEIVE RESPECT U NEED TO GIVE RESPECT.
All that over $500
Wow plaintiff should have been awarded MAX 200. Simple math. Bad judgment. Thank goodness defendant is rid of this so called friend
I know everyone thinks the girl looks scared but I thought Doug looked a little intimidated by the real tall guy.
I’m confused. If they paid $1500 for it. And sold it for $3400 in my brain the most the plaintiff could get would be $200
That’s what I thought
Judge is earning her pay today. 🙄
I do it often. 😂 great response to Doug.
Does she not realize she is in court? That get up that she has on is for night clubs. She looks ridiculous.
I didn't even know she was there till the end! Trophy wife for sure
@@TopherGrant I thought it was his daughter, but now I'm not sure.
@@TopherGrantThey are truck drivers. They don’t have trophy wives
She's kinda standing away from him when he didn't get awarded so much. She's not happy.
@mickm6309 she never looked up. Not sure if she was nervous or scared of him
Plaintive kept trying to use words that he didn’t know how do use like liable, discrepancy, and hearsay. He thought he was sounding lawyer-y.
Size means nothing. I don't think the defendant was afraid of the plaintiff, but the judge should know size doesn't matter.
Bet he has a temper 😅
I agree
Yes hot head
Dude on point
Snake move ?? Man cut his losses and got double investment with no room for liabikity foh
Lmao the plaintiff 100% lied when she asked if he trusted Aaron’s word because he knew he would get less money. What a sleaze
That's the shirt she decided to wear to court?!
No thats the shirt he picked for her to wear.😂
Plaintiff: Boehoe i want money😢
Can’t believe this petty case of two grown men for $500
I agree. My time is worth more than $500. I would have just cut my losses and never enter into an agreement with that guy again. That’s all
Folks wear anything in this court. Judge Judy would not allow it at all
What's wrong with what they're wearing? They both look fine to me.
@@vorpal22the club wear the lady with the plaintiff is wearing
@@Sugarplum33 Ah. Ha - hard to notice her except at the beginning and then again until right at the end. I can see why someone would call that outfit inappropriate for court.
Pure greed!!!
The math is wrong!!! What happened to the defendant's original $1000 put in the boat. That should have been subtracted before calculating the profit
I wish I worked with
them! 😂😂😂
How tall are you?
6'5
😂😂😂😂😂
Lost their dignity for $540.00.
Lose a friendship for $500
Lmao! Mail order bride , 1000$ says their teamsters the girls network in high school lmao 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
If being tall means you are strong and tough then giraffes would rule the would
The judge asks a question to the defendant and then doesn’t shut up long enough to let him answer. Just talks over him and moves on. Are we getting the facts or is she just creating her own narrative?
Heyyyyy I’m right on time !!!! ❤
It is obvious the "old man" is a complete liar. He could have just split the profit. People they work with all were a part of this whole thing. The boat was sold at the profit of 6500.00.
Yeah, he for sure sold it at 6500, like the plaintiff believes. That's why the defendant was ok with the verdict and never got angry at the plaintiff winning so much.
He claims the plaintiff received 1500+750, and then won over 500 in judgement, so the plaintiff made over 2800 out of a 3400. That means the defendant only received 600 from the sell, which doesn't even cover his initial investment of 750 (let alone his 450 repair cost and other 250 repair cost). He didn't get angry or even point that out, so he for sure sold it at 6500, like the plaintiff believes.
Maybe it’s me, but the plaintiff’s attitude seems a little off when answering questions or even describing the circumstances.
Maybe he’s nervous?
Classic dumb brain syndrome.
My thing is the plaintiff already got a profit when the defendant bought him out being that he paid $750 the repairs $250 equal $1000 if the defendant paid him $1500 he already have a profit of $500 but if they go off their contract if the defendant sold it for $3400 half of that would be $1700 minus the $1500 that the plaintiff already received would leave a balance of $200 that the defendant would have had to pay.
The plaintiff ended up walking away with a total of $2000 at least while the defendant did not.
All this math just baffles me. Ugh.
What about it baffles you?
@@vorpal22 hahahahaha
If you do the math correctly, the plaintiff must have received 200 dollars from the defendant.
At the time of the separation, the plaintiff made $750 and at the time of the final sale, the defendant made $1150.
750+200=950 for plaintiff and 1150-200=950 for defendant.
Come on judge, pay the defendant the difference out of your pocket. $376 LOL
This case was so confusing I think neither should get a dime. 🤷♀️🤦♀️
I watched 2 seconds and came here and seriously no comments about the plaintiff forehead? Fr? Ok
At 11:12 she says then don’t sign it. But I thought the issue was that he didn’t sign it and just wrote out what the guy wanted because he was afraid of him.
Just because someone is taller than someone, does not mean a smaller statured person can not be intimidating and threatening!! Cone on Judge that attitude is ridiculous!
Judge M, the size of the man has nothing to do with his ability to defend himself unless he is trained in self-defense. In addition, size has no boundaries if weapons are involved not to mention threats to one's family. That argument doesn't hold water. The defendant could definitely feel duress. The plaintiff is 100% intimidating - his stance, his facial expression.
I own %50 and you own %50 of something!!!! your half is sold for $1500, so my half worths $1500 , total of $3000!!!!
Judge maid a mistake!!!
$3000 - 3400 =$400
And divided that by 2 is $200 owed!!!
Such repetitive testimony! And shame on the judge for her statement that, due to his height, the defendant shouldn't have been intimidated by the plaintiff (not that I believe that he was).
People can - and do - hurt others who are bigger. Or a smaller person could have a crackpotted personality, and be the type to burn another person's home if they're angry.
Nevermind the stupidity of going partners on a vehicle or vessel in the first place.. but why would you go partners on something as cheap as $1,500? And a toy at that?? Come on, what do you think is going to happen??
Plaintiff was def a greedy/not good “friend.”
You made yourself look bad by being MONEY HUNGRY PERIOD !
This "after-the-case" character adds absolutely NOTHING. Ugh.
AGREED