HomeMy WebLinkAbout96-01261
)
~.
,
f'-
".~
'-J
~
f;f..
,
j
J
.......
-.j
~
v,/
~, .'
i
.~ '
--> I
l'!
I
I
,
"
,
'I
/
f'1LED-<lFl'1CE
Cr: T\..I:~ ;:-.",\'I.-\':)r:,~1Y
n" "'f' " ,'. 'f'. 01
:.Ii.)" . . -~ i1d l~i' f
eL"e. ',,' '....
..I........ '.... . .', ' 'r.~" I r
PENNS'r1.',,<l,'ji).
>~
r'-
..
III
f ;.~
fi: ' .
t.:< j
(, , . ..
l. ..
" 'Il
, ; ,-
I . )
, , , , '.>
( .
~
rot'"
~
~~
~ ...')~
I\...i ~ ~' ~"
,~ ~'..1
4. The system was initially installed on 10 April 1995 and included a thirty
day money back guarantee.
5. Within two weeks of the installation, problems developed with the
system wherein a slime or other material began to develop in the pool.
e. Plaintiffs notified Defendant of the problem and Defendant finally came to
correct the problem on 12 May 1995.
7. Within lour weeks of that date, the same problems developed and the
Defendant was contacted again.
8. Defendant came to Plaintiffs' residence a second time to correct the
problem and applied chemicals for the second time to the pool in order to resolve
the unclean water issues related to the pool.
9. The problem did not resolve itself and Defendant was called back several
times thereafter.
10. Defendant's representative came back at least three additional times,
and each time added chemicals to the pool.
11. On or about 10 September 1995, the Defendant came back again to
attempt to correct the problem and again put chemicals into the water.
12. Following this treatment by Defendant, Plaintiffs discovered that the
pool liner was severely bleached.
3
13. Plaintiffs had purchased the liner in their pool in March of 1995.
COUNT I . BREACH OF WARRANTY
14. Paragraphs 1 through 13 are incorporated herein by reference.
15. The Defendant provided Plaintiffs with a thirty day warranty
guaranteeing that the Caribbean Clear filtration system would work to the express
satisfaction of the Plaintiffs.
16. The filtration system purchased by Plaintiffs from Defendant never
worked properly.
17. Despite repeated attempts by Defendant to correct the problems with
the filtration system, the filtration system does not work to this day.
18. Defendant has breached all express and implied warranties pr'Jvided to
Plaintiffs in that the system sold to Plaintiffs by Defendant has failed to work for itf,
intended use in that specifically it has failed to purify the water as claimed.
19. Plaintiffs have demanded that Defendant return any and all sums paid to
Defendant for the purchase of the system, but Defendant has failed or refused to
return said monies.
20. Plaintiffs have been damaged in the amount of $1,350.00 whir.:h
represents the purchase price of the filtration system.
WHEREFORE. Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant in the amount
of $1,350.00, plus interest plus costs of suit.
4
COUNT II - NEGLIGENCE
21. Paragraphs 1 through 13 are incorporated herein by reference.
22. The Defendant returned to Plaintiffs' residence and attltmpted to correct
the problems with the filtration system at least five times.
23. Each time, the Defendant added chemicals to the pool in order to correct
the problem.
24. On or about 10 September 1995, the last time that the Defendant were
at the premises, the Defendant put chemicals into the water that subsequently
stained the pool liner.
25. The pool liner in the Plaintiffs' pool was purchased new and was being
used for its first full system when it was stained.
26. Defendant owed Plaintiffs a duty to repair or correct the problems with
the filtration system and to insure that any steps that it undertook to correct the
problems did not caure further damage to the pool.
27. Defendant was negligent in that its action in trying to correct the
problems to the filtration system caused destruction to the pool liner itself.
28. The damage to the pool liner cannot be repaired and it requires the
replacement of the pool liner itself.
5
29. The cost to replace the pool liner is $2,150.00.
30. Plaintiffs have been damaged as a result of the negligence of the
Defendant in destroying their pool liner in the amount of $2,150.00.
31. Plaintiffs have demanded that Defendant pay for the cost of
replacement of the pool liner, but Defendant has failed or refused to make such
payment.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant in the amount
of $2,150.00.
Respectfully submitted,
i
MICHAEL L; BANG
Attorney for Plain' fs
302 South 18th treet
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 730-7310
Supreme Court 10 #41263
6
1",1\\' \ l
N.. .\r.,; Ir~':,
\)o..k r. 5r)uj\1o..,l ,3.-. -~~wl.......,\,. ~\(Ic\(\,\\'), S'N.l'J\.Q,\ .. i:!v......I.S.~
R.u..;:..~~\ lY\, ~\O\\.~"\l:loLr.) - \:'l1A."~""" , ;:)\\",
c~ \ \. L 12\.......r.. 'V'\ "V\ \ ;".. \ \ ( \" .\\ \''',(1\.t:) ..... ("l\\I.:...
~ "p..'A.I...... ...J ,-,v'" -~, O'''\.~)i' \) "'.""lI."'.\\- '''-'
, ,
n ,., .--'.,
f: <;I' r'
.' ::-l
-n: :. ') 1;11
C': I .....
--- ~,~ ,....1'1
Zf ':6
(f. e."
-:
~,. '!
-,. ..:.~
~' -'-
P~'" =:J ,..I
;~
,~ J.) ~
-: '0
DONALD W. CHESBRO and
WENDY CHESBRO, Plaintiff
VS.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 96-1261 CIVIL TERM
GEORGE McCRORY, d/b/a,
CARIBBEAN CLEAR, Defendant
NOTICE OF HEARING BY BOARD OF ARBITRATORS
You are hereby notified that the Board of Arbitrators
appointed by the Court in the above captioned case will sit for
the purpose of their appointment in the Second Floor Hearing Room
of the Old Cumberland County Courthouse, Carlisle, Pennsylvania,
on ..~D..day, Ootober 23, 199. at 1130 p,m.
Dale F. Shughart, Jr., Esquire
Stephen L. Bloom, Esquire
Rachel M. Stoltenberg, Esquire
r~
DATE: August 21, 1996
TO: Michael L. Bangs, Esquire
302 South 18th Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Richard H. Mylin, III, Esquire
135 South DUke Street
York, PA 17403
Stephen L. Bloom, Esquire
10 East High Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
Rachel M. Stoltenberg, Esquire
One Irvine Row
Carlisle, PA 17013
Court Administrator
Cumberland County Courthouse
, ,
?r: r.n '-
,~.
~ ..3 .:
1& M ~~
,'-~
"l!: .)2:'~
:J ,,-
~ !._J
r :' ,,:-;)
r.
c. ).~
. !:-~ ~ ..::',J
;r. :-,~(p
f-':; ~ .".;,;,-
~ ..0 5
0\ U
~~
~~
z~~
~tIltal
8~~~
ll<o >
, ~.~.tl ~
~ "'0
:> \D~
8i::a~
10<
tal \D
III "'0-'1
...U .S:
Zll<oO~
r-tozu
........,.....)....1
'~
~
lQ
tIl
~li1
UlQ
tIl
~~
U
CI
~~
8~
<
.....
lQ
.....
CI
..... '"
== ti~
a~~~~lii
~ J <~.b
....~:Ji~
. ";;:.J,~ ~
t:I::iQtJ) ....
9~E~~!?
<~~t&Jt:.~
:= ~~ ...
u ~iil
&! -~
Ul
>
.Q:;
~ra
~o-'I
UU
~~
tal
tallQ
t.:llQ
Q:;r-t
&l~
t.:lU
Q:;
~
tIl
~
the extent a response is required, it is specifically denied
that the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of any problems or
that the Defendant camp. to correct any problem on May 12,
1995. Strict proof is hereby demanded.
7. Denied. After reasonable investigation,
Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the avermen~s
contained within this paragraph and saying is therefore
denied.
8. Denied. After reasonable investigation,
Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained within this paragraph and saying is therefore
denied. To the extent that a response is required, it is
denied that there was any problems with the water related to
the system installed by D~fendant. To the contrary, any
problem was related to the liner.
9. Danied. After reasonable investigation,
Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained within this paragraph and saying is therefore
denied.
10. Denied. After reasonable investigation,
Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained within this paragraph and saying is therefore
denied. Strict proof is hereby demanded.
11. Admitted/Denied in part. It is admitted that on
September 10, 1995, the Defendant went to the residence in
response to a complaint by the Plaintiffs. It is
specifically denied that any probiJm was related to the
system sold and installed by the Defendant. It is further
denied that any chemicals put in the water would have caused
any damage.
12. Denied. After reasonable investigation,
Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments,
contained within this paragraph and saying is therefore
denied.
13. Denied. After reasonable investigation,
Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained within this paragraph and saying is therefore
denied.
14. The answers to paragraphs 1 through 13 above are
incorporated herein by reference thereto.
15. Admitted.
16. Denied. It is specifically denied that the pool
purifier purchased by Plaintiffs never worked properly. To
the contrary, the system was working perfectly. Any
problems caused Hayward Perflex EC-65 filtration system
which ~as not replaced by the Defendant and was used by the
Plaintiffs during the time in question.
17. Denied. It is specifically denied that the
Plaintiffs made repeated attempts upon the Defendant to
correct the problems with the installed system. To the
contrary, the first contact was made in July 1995, at which
time there was no mention of slime. The Plaintiffs were
advised to purchase a adequate test kit so that the ph level
could be properly maintained. Furthermore, Defendant is
without information or knowledge regarding the working
conditions of the filtration system which was not installed
by the Defendant.
18. Denied. This paragraph claims conclusion of law
which require no response. If a response is deemed
required, Defendant denies that it has breached, expressed
or implied warranties. Furthermore, the system has not
failed to work for its intended use. To the contrary,
during any inspections by the Defendant of the pool liner,
it was determined that the system installed by Defendant was
not causing the problem. Proof was provided to the
Plaintiffs at that time.
19. Denied. It is denied that the Defendant caused
any damages to Plaintiffs or that Plaintiffs are entitled to
a refund at the end of the pool season.
20. Denied. It is specifically denied that the
Defendant has caused any damages to the Plaintiffs and that
the damages sustained amount to $1,350.00 for the purchase
price of of a automatic pool purifier.
WHEREFORE, the Defendant requests that the Plaintiffs'
Complaint be dismissed and a judgment be enter it's favor
together with costs and suit.
21. The answers to paragraphs 1 through 20 above are
incorporated herein by reference thereto.
22. Denied. After reasonable investigation,
Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained within this paragraph and saying is therefore
denied.
23. Admitted/Denied in part. It is admitted that the
Defendant added chemicals to attempt to resolve the problem
in the pool. It is specifically denied that the problem was
in any way related to the pool purifier installed by the
Defendant.
24. Admitted/Denied in part. It is admitted that the
Defendant again came to the premises and proved to the
Plaintiffs that the purification system was not the cause of
the problem. It is admitted that the Defendant put
chemicals in the waterl however, it is specifically denied
that the chemicals would cause any staining to the pool
liner.
25. Denied. After reasonable investigation,
Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained within this paragraph and saying is therefore
denied.
26. Denied. This paragraph claims conclusion of law
which require no response. If a response is deemed
required, Defendant denies that any problems were a result
of the pool purifier installed by the Defendant.
27. Denied. This ~aragraph claims conclusion of law
which require no response. If a response is deemed
required, Defendant denies that he was negligent in trying
to correct the pool liner problem. It is specifically
denied that any problems were related to the p~ol purifier
system instnlled by the Defendant.
2S. Denied. After reasonable investigation,
Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained within this paragraph and saying is therefore
denied.
29. Denied. After reasonable investigation,
Answering Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments
contained within this paragraph and saying is therefore
4. The system was initially installed on 10 April 1995 and included a thirty
day money back guarantee. Attached hereto and marked as Exhibit B is a true and
correct copy of the written guarantee.
5. Within two weeks of the installation. problems developed with the
system wherein a slime or other material began to develop in the pool.
6. Plaintiffs notified Defendant of the problem and Defendant finally came to
correct the problem on 12 May 1995.
7. Within four weeks of that date. the same problems developed and the
Defendant was contacted again.
8. Defendant came to Plaintiffs' residence a second time to correct the
problem and applied chemicals for the second time to the pool in order to resolve
the unclean water issues related to the pool.
9. The problem did not resolve itself and Defendant was called back several
times thereafter.
10. Defendant's representative came back at least three additional times.
and each time added chemicals to the pool.
11. On or about 10 September 1995. the Defendant came back again to
attempt to correct the problem and again put chemicals into the water.
12. Following this treatment by Defendant. Plaintiffs discovered that the
pool liner W&S severely bleached.
3
13. Plaintiffs had purchased the liner in their pool in March of 1995.
COUNT I . BREACH OF WARRANTY
14. Paragraphs 1 through 13 are incorporated herein by reference.
15. The Defendant provided Plaintiffs with a thirty day warranty
guaranteeing that the Caribbean Clear automatic pool purifier would work to the
express satisfaction of the Plaintiffs.
16. The pool purifier purchased by Plaintiffs from Defendant never worked
properly.
17. Despite repeated attempts by Defendant to correct the problems with
the pool purifier. the pool purifier does not work to this day.
18. Defendant has breached all express and implied ~'arranties provided to
Plaintiffs in that the system sold to Plaintiffs by Defendant has failed to work for its
intended use in that specifically it has failed to purify the water as claimed.
19. Plaintiffs have demanded that Defendant return any and all sums paid to
Defendant for the purchase of the system, but Defendant has failed or refused to
return said monies.
20. Plaintiffs have been damaged in the amount of $1,350.00 which
represents the purchase price of the automatic pool purifier system.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendant in the amount
of $1,350.00, plus interest plus costs of suit.
4
COUNT II . NEGLIGENCE
21. Paragraphs 1 through 13 are incorporated herein by reference.
22. The Defendant returned to Plaintiffs' residence and attempted to correct
the problems with the pool purifier at least five times.
23. Each time, the Defendant added chemicals to the pool in order to correct
the problem.
24. On or about 10 September 1995, the last time that the Defendant were
at the premises, the Defendant put chemicals into the water that subsequently
stained the pool liner.
25. The pool liner in the Plaintiffs' pool was purchased new and was being
used for its first full system when it WllS stained.
26. Defendant owed Plaintiffs a duty to repair or correct the problems with
the pool purifier and to insure that any steps that it undertook to correct the
probloms did not cause any damage to the pool or pool liner.
27. Defendant was negligent in that its action in trying to correct the
problems to the pool purifier system caused destruction to the pool liner itself.
28. The damage to the pool liner cannot be repaired and it requires the
replacement of the pool liner itself.
"
5
-.
r3
>-l CIl
p., ..; z
..... 0
Ii ~ <Xl ,... .... ~~
..... e-. ....
"-l ~~ Q U ~ ~;. I
E-t r..I
8~ <Xl <Xl '0:: .., <Iii;;:
>-l CIlCll ><..; <Xl ><< <
0 ,... r..Ir..I gjtj 0 ::<l .; f:i;. J
r..u :> tt::I:
0 HI UU o::U >< . >::.l;:! ~
0 U U ~ =~Ql'IJ t::
E-t~..; .>< CIl uz ~~=~;::'t:.
c:: ,....... :J:O :> 2:r3 I-< ~ ;:..
::> ~\Q Z ,... ~~"8:!-=
o N Oral r:l<Xl 2: iiJ . ...
Ur..I:>.... >-l:J: ~<Xl ,... 1;) ~~ ',d
~>-ll ..; C::H >-l g:; -~
ffl ~:;: ZO 00:: r..I
8~ r..I"; 0::
E-tUZ ~U p.,
Z .
Zr..ralO
HOP;Z
g
110
Ii I
O~ ~
o ....
1ka0 ::-
o ....,
~ ~~~\~\
O~~'"
Olol ~:;I' ail
lol >0'"
= UlCl\
t<0:Z
:Z1ka~O
....Ollo:z
~~
III III
UlUl
ralral
==
00
. >0 en
~O :>
:z
~~
8~
.0:
.....
III
.....
o
~~
~o
o
i!a
fillll
t.?1ll
1>:....
01>:
~~
en
:z
o
....
t<
U
fil
..,
III
o
>0
~
....
:I:
....
~
~
110
_ 13
::: Wt!
7. tol-
_ 0:< ;1.
:;: <!ii;?~, ~
::!! ~~~~
:ti EiJi~~
Cl :::i~ ;:: t-
o: t'~~"
.0( ~~C~
:t: ~" '"
:::! ~~
~ ....~
failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted in
that they have a lack of compasity to sue the
Defendant/George McCrory.
WBBRBFORB, Defendant prays that the Complaint be
dismissed with prejudice.
II. J<<>TION FOR IiDRB SPECIFIC PLEADING.
Count I of the Complaint reports to assert a claim for
breach of warranty.
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1019 requires that
the facts supporting the caU2e of action be p1ea~ with
specificity.
Pennsylvania Courts recognize that broad, vague,
general allegationE of breach of warranty are insufficient
to state a claim.
WBBRBFORB, the Defendant request that this Honorable
Court to order that the Plaintiffs' Complaint be dismissed,
or in alternative, require the Plaintiffs to amend the
Complaint.
III. FAILURE TO ATTACH WRITING.
The Defendant oejects to Plaintiffs' Complaint on the
basis that the Plaintiffs failed to attach copies of any
warranties establi3hing that the system would work to the
..... .0-
C~---NWlALfM Of .......V\VANIA
couti,- OfC~ ,LUs
NOllel O' APPlAL
fROM
JUlNCw. DlI'IIC'
DtSlltCl JUSltel JUDGMINl
c__,u.u_ 96-l26l Civil T'lrm
NOTICE O' APPEAL
Notice it r;- tf10t !he appeIlont hat Hied in !he abovo Court 01 C""""OIl PIeo. an appeal from .... j~t ronderod by !he Oi",iet Mtic. on !he
..... ard In !he CON ..,tlonod ~
~~;;-MCCRORY, D/B/A CARI;~~~N .~~~~R-_~_~=--__~=-~J:::~~;NAMH#01
.. -OfNflllJ,NofT UIY "1f.i lIlCODI
700 HILL STREET ._____.,___XQBK...._.____. PA .~~ 17403
:iJ~~' I"THlC"'''''_1J WENDY CHESBRO '~i
CARIBBEAN CLEAR
02 <D' OO'A"" W. CH'SSRO.,,[", .AHtil' ':li~~~fH>V dlbfd
CV II! 0000507-95 -r> I ,// -Ze -=- - f(j
LT 19 ..f!,c~ H ") ~ - ,.UL ,c. f'tl
Thio block wi. be IigI>od QIoIlY when this nolatien i. required under Po. R.cP.JP. I'b "arJlJIlI/'ant was CLAIMANT (see Pa. RCP,J,P No.
10081. /""- , , '.,
Thio Nolie. of Appeal, when recoived by the Di.triet Jo.Iie., will operote as 0 100 t (6) In action before DIstrlcl Justice. he MUST
SLftR5EDEAS Ia!he j~t"" _lion in this ca.& FILE A COMPLAINT within twenty (20) days after
filing hiS NOTICE 01 APPEAL.
SigJatum 01 Pralhon_y Of Deputy
PRAICIPI TO INTER lUll TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULI TO fill
(Thill ssetion 01 /cxm to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa. RCPJ,P, No, 100t(7) in action belCJ(/J District Justice.
IF NOT USED. detach /rom c~y 01 notice 01 appeal to be seIVed upon _11ee J,
PRAICIPE. To Prothonotary
Entw rule upon nOtJAT.n W 1"T-IIi'SRRO E'1' ilL
"""",'oI_s)
(Common Pleao I'b 96 -12 6 1 C i V i 1 Term ) within ~ty (20) day. after ...vic. of rule or .ul'" ""'ry 01 ~ of _ PI""
-n C-'"'
J...,,~ /,/. '7- .... - €f'Il1,
. ?,"oI_ot"'_ot__ '
,
, appe8H(.). Ia ftle a comploinl in this ........
RULI. To
nnrJllrn tAl f"R~c;~ iT AI.
Nane 01 s}
, OFIF.""(I~
(I) You en no~fied thaI a rule it he.eby ""tered upon you Ia file a complainl in this appeal within twenty (20) days aftw !he dol. of
MrVic. of this rule upan you by p....enal ....ic. Of by certified Of registered mail
(2) If you do nol ftle a complaint within this Hme, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS W1U BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU.~
Dale:
March 7,
(3) The date of ...vice 01 this rule ~ _vice _ by nlCIil i. !he dote of mailing.
f
96
.19_.
~
~'
.tQPC Jt~...
b
'..... ,
-- \ ") ~1 '*
0 \, :) '" "" --.
'," I~ """
-:: ...... "
'; ", oj
- 11: '" '.... "~ " ,"- ,,- -.....'
~ , .... .....
" , -.- ... 1
, ' '-1 ......... ~
'o! '. ,~ " '~ /} ....
'-
'-- "'^\ .... ,-,0 ...,.,
f ........::;-... ~
" \'-... N) ~ " ""-l-
-
c' '.(........, - I_~ ...-:-:.
.,....... ,
)
rc"'t -..... ".,( ,-
~ ~"; \J. r-
..:r "," - -." r::::
. -
<l ',--, 5- "-
~ -- ~ .-L ..... "
~ ~
\ ~ ~-.J '.....
rv" ,-~ ....... " c:
....s ,:::, '\-
-..;:,- - '-' <
"'J 'hll',lJ,:o \J'i"l\.iIIUtU(!l,(~
,1IIJ'iiOjO;lIl!l
Ii:'".; ,J'''; h' .";.'! '"~ '1i""..J; ";';'1 nU';jol i1) ,..nlll!.ltll~
lJ.I"ljJl! jt) 'fH1/I1!iIJi')
;) ~
j\J ,\ 'It)
SIHl.
I ,~,
"ol
lu\
ild ,.11\]':-j )':,+,':1 IJfU \i'J ] i1t--i I J :t'11 Nl:JOMS
\.J i.j~ f; Hi )';Hl! ,1li':udJ 'i.,.Jj.IIJ+; i!';liJ
(~jtJhjPill:Jdl) \1J.JI~;lj,l'l) .<; I:....;.J :i.' :.,';
;'".,
'>i ,;.11. i;;i-;U.''\ cJjiqJ ":j\
l.Ll04"" 01 ("f.t~H'ldd~ '/f~i '~n.j'l i'. ",~,_~ "f f':; ,; _, ','.' \
'-'!'j
1: '1 ~J .';: '.' ,,', ,;'~ [ "jij i;"; C,';.. \.'
OldJd4 pdq }i!lji> ,.10:-1 ,"-'J ; i-~i)i,j'; rO,
/,_: "I;;
",
i-}d~.
Tf;.i
Ul)'--~
l'
'li <I e'" , 'ldl..J 11~ ':1'.0 IJUdl, \jllll ')l<ihJlj pdq'JlHle Idld.:JOJ
'JJiJPU;'J'!i p~Ul (~.hj;di:;d],'ll \j.l.,}!,I;H'):CI :; '" i'
U<J L/i,j;;.:Hli p.J;I!'J13I:;,JP,J lib!'!' I,Ji..I"'tj d'll ',; .j"
, ,
to' ~
(I.l.'i~id'> JO IJJl!pi
'''';!.!') ,.' -nql1N 'rH;1) "drn Ii 0
.1 'oj
;.h,l.; l:Y, illlH Ud1jiB..O HidM:; ^QdJC:J4 I
:~I^val:l:lY
..
"'" -----,-,-- JO AJ.Nno:)
YINYA1ASNNld JO HJ."HMNO""<<)
l'7i)1'>1 ,J,!-'7"'},Jt" I' I',
!,f'.
""
'i', '.
'.\ :/
Jil L 'J"!i', ;j-ld;u~' j{) jOOJd SHIl)
l.NIVldW'lO:> 31U Ol. 31m; QNV W3dd't JO DIlON JO 3:lIMI3S ~o ~omld