Henry vs Henry’s Condo – Case

This interesting case is about a leak in Henry’s apartment, and his frustration in getting it fixed. The case was an “inquest”, a one sided case, because the defendant (the managing agent for Henry’s condominium, here called “Henry’s Condo”) did not show up in court. Under our rules, Henry must still prove his claim for…

FacebookTwitterGoogle+LinkedInPrintShare

Henry vs Henry’s Condo – Decision

After considering his earnest arguments, I told Henry that in my opinion he was not entitled to an award of $250 to Jack because he did not actually pay Jack anything out of his pocket, and if granted, it would have raised the award over and above his actual damages. I also disallowed his claim…

Leo vs Jimmy – Case

This case was assigned to me by the Small Claims administrator as an “inquest”, a one sided trial in which only the plaintiff (who I will here call “Leo”) and not the defendant, (who I will here call “Jimmy”) showed up. I have found over many years as an arbitrator that many interesting legal issues…

Leo vs Jimmy – Decision

I held that the $500 was an unenforceable penalty, rather than interest. The current statutory rate of interest is 9% annually, making the sum of $500, a sum unrelated to the time between the default on the loan and the entry of judgment, incorrect in my opinion and possibly usurious. I told Leo that the…