Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout99-06564 G I IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Michael S. Richardson, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiff, V. NO. 1999 CCR's Motor Car Company, Inc. l Defendant. NOTICE You have been sued in court. If you wish to defend against the claims set forth in the following pages, you must take action within twenty days alter this complaint and notice are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with the court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You arc warned that if you fail to do so, the case may proceed without you, and a judgment may be entered against you by the court, without further notice for any money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief requested by the plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights important to you. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP. Cumberland County Bar Association 2 Liberty Avenue Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013 Telephone number: 717-249-3166 MANN. WCIOLC AND PERKINS - ATTORNEYS AT LAW - 126 EAST MIND SWEET - 5111PPENSRUNG. PA 17257 1307 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Michael S. Richardson, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiff, V. NO. 1999 - 656 '/ Coal` %tcr CCR's Motor Car Company, Inc. Defendant. COMPLAINT COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Michael S. Richardson, by and through his attorney, Jerry A. Weigle, Esquire, and petitions this Court to declare, enforce and support the following: COUNTI REVOCATION OF ACCEPTANCE. 1. The Plaintiff, Michael S. Richardson, is an adult individual residing at 8534 Rowe Run Road, Chambersburg, Franklin County, Pennsylvania 17201. 2. The Defendant is CCR's Motor Car Company Inc., a corporation duly formed and existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which is presently engaged in buying and selling used vehicles with principal place of business being 705 East King Street, Shippenburg, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17257. 3. On or about May 20, 1999, Plaintiff purchased a 1988 Nissan Maxima SE automobile from the Defendant for a purchase price of Three Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety-five Dollars ($3995.00). 4. The parties hereto agreed that the said purchase price of Three Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety-five Dollars ($3995.00) was to be paid by the Plaintiff to Defendant as follows: trade in vehicle valued at Seven Hundred Dollars ($700.00); cash payment of Seven Hundred Dollars ($700.00); and Defendant financing of Two Thousand Nine Hundred and Ninety-five Dollars ($2995.00). A copy of the vehicle contract titled, "Used Vehicle Order', is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked Plaintiffs Exhibit 1. 5. An express warranty was part of the contract of sale, a copy of which is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked Plaintiffs Exhibit 2. The vehicle in question was also advertised for sale with an express warranty. A copy of the advertisement which was placed on the vehicle, is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked Plaintiffs Exhibit 3. MANN, WEIGLE AND PENNINS - ATTONNEVS AT LAW - 126 EAST KING STIIEET - SHIPPLNSIIUND, PA 17257.1797 6. On or about May 29, 1999, the vehicle in question broke down and was inoperable due to a major transmission problem. 7. Although Defendant subsequently repaired the vehicle in question, Plaintiff was without his vehicle from May 29, 1999 until July 2, 1999, a period of approximately Five (5) weeks. 8. On or about July 23, 1999, the vehicle in question broke down a second time, apparently with the same transmission problem Defendant retook possession of vehicle on or about July 29, 1999, and has refused to either repair the vehicle or to return it to the Plaintiff. 9. Plaintiff has made Twelve (12) payments of Fifty Dollars ($50.00) to Defendant on the unpaid balance of purchase price, totaling Six Hundred Dollars ($600.00), and has also paid Pennsylvania sales tax in the amount of One Hundred Ninety- seven Dollars and Seventy Cents ($197.70), incurred title and tag fees in the amount of Fifty-three Dollars and Fifty Cents ($53.50) and has paid to date, automobile insurance premium in the amount of One Hundred Ninety Dollars ($190.00). 10. The Plaintiff notified Defendant on or about August 20, 1999 that he would no longer make payments on the Nissan vehicle in question until vehicle was properly repaired- Plaintiffs last payment was made on or about August 13, 1999. 11. To date, Plaintiff has only been able to drive the vehicle purchased for about Four (4) weeks from date of purchase. 12. Plaintiff subsequently offered a compromise, which included the immediate resumption of payments on vehicle, but said Defendant categorically rejected offer to compromise. A copy of Plaintiffs compromise proposal is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked Plaintiffs Exhibit 4. 13. Plaintiff subsequently received a document from Defendant, dated September 3, 1999, titled "Notice of Repossessing", a copy of which is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and marked Plaintiffs Exhibit 5. 14. Plaintiff has now determined to revoke his acceptance pursuant to 13 Pa C.S.A. 2608 (b) and has notified the Defendant of said revocation on or about September 17, 1999. A copy of said revocation of acceptance is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and narked Plaintiffs Exhibit 6. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands that his revocation of acceptance with respect to the automobile purchase contract entered thereto with Defendant be confirmed by the Court and further demands the return of his purchase price paid to date in the amount of MANK. WEIGLE AND PENKIN% - ATTONNEYS AT LAW - 116 EAST KIN6 : %11111'1 - SIIIPPENSIIUNO. PA 17257.1]U7 Two Thousand Two Hundred Fifty-one Dollars and Twenty Cents ($2251.20), interest and his costs incurred in the prosecution of this action, legal fees, and such other relief as to the Court may deem necessary and proper. COUNT II BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY 15. The averments contained in paragraphs 1-14 of the Complaint arc incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in their entirety. 16. In purchasing the 1988 Nissan vehicle, Plaintiff relied upon the Defendant's express warranty as communicated in the agreement of sale, through advertisement and orally, to the effect that it was dependable, road worthy and free from defects. 17. Said express warranty is a part of the contract of sale between Plaintiff and Defendant. 18. Said express warranty has been clearly broken by Defendant, in that transmission problems with vehicle, which have not been corrected by Defendant, have prevented the Plaintiff from enjoyment and use of the 1988 Nissan vehicle for all but about Four (4) weeks since the date of purchase of May of 1999. 19. Plaintiff has made defendant fully aware of the vehicle's defects, since the date of purchase. 20. Plaintiff gave Defendant formal written notice of defects complained about on or about September 3, 1999. A true and correct copy of said notice is attached hereto, made a part hereof, and previously marked as Plaintiffs Exhibit 4. 21. Defendant has failed and refused, and still fails and refuses to correct the vehicle defects complained of. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Michael S. Richardson, demands judgment against the Defendant in the amount of Two Thousand Two Hundred Fifly-one Dollars and Twenty Cents ($2251.20) and his costs incurred in the prosecution of this action and such other relief as to the Court may deem necessary and proper. COUNT III BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY 22. The averments contained in paragraphs 1-21 of the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in their entirety. MARK, WEIGLE AND PERKINS - ATTUBNEYS AT LAW - 126 EAST KING STREET - SIIIPP[N•iHUNG, PA 177571307 23. The vehicle sold by Defendant and purchased by Plaintiff was not of merchantable quality; rather it was unfit, unsafe, mid unusable for the purpose for which it was intended. Said present condition of the vehicle constitutes a breach of Defendant's implied warranty of merchantability as defined in 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2314. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Michael S. Richardson demands judgment against the Defendant in the amount of Two Thousand Two Hundred Filly-one Dollar; and Twenty Cents ($2251.20) and his costs incurred in the prosecution of this action and such other relief as to the Court may deem necessary and proper. COUNT IV VIOLATION OF PENNSYLVANIA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW 24. The averments contained in paragraphs 1-23 of the Complaint are incorporated herein by reference as though set forth in their entirety. 25. Defendant represented that 1988 Nissan vehicle was ofa particular standard quality. 26. Subsequently, Plaintiff has learned that the vehicle he purchased from Defendant was not of that particular standard and that Defendant refused to repair said vehicle according to the 30-day warranty. 27. The Defendant's misrepresentations have violated 73 P.S. § 201-1 et seq. and the regulations promulgated thereunder at 37 Pa. Code § 301.1 ct seq. 28. The Plaintiff, Michael S. Richardson, purchased this 1988 Nissan vehicle as a consumer and has suffered damages and an ascertainable loss as a direct and proximate result of the actions and practices of Defendant CCR's Motor Car Company, Inc. 29. The Defendant has violated the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law in the following ways: A. The Defendant's statements regarding the condition of the vehicle as being of a particular standard quality or grade that it was, in fact, not; B. Defendant failed to comply with the terms of warranty given to the Plaintiff at the time of purchase of the vehicle. MANN. WEIGLE AND PC14KINS - ATTORNEYS AT LAW - 120 CAST KING STREET - V011PENSDURG. PA 17257.1367 C. The Defendant's failure to comply with the terms of warranty has created a likelihood of confusion and misunderstanding to the Plaintiff. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands a judgment in an amount in excess of Two Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($2,200.00) plus treble damages, reasonable attorney's fees, interest as allowed by 73 P.S. § 201-9.2, and the costs of litigation. BY: MARK, WEIGLE AND 0 1 r, & Attorney for Plaintiff 126 East King Street Shippensburg, PA 17257 717-532-7388 MARK. WEIOLE AND PERKINS - ATTORNEVS AT LAW - 120 CAST NINE STREET - SNIPPENSIIURO, PA 177S7.1307 VERIFICATION 1 verify that the statements made in the foregoing Complaint am true and correct. I understand that false statements herein arc made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904, relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Michael S. Richardson Datcd: 01 1 1 MARK, WEIGLE AND PERKINS - ATTORNEVS AT LAW - 120 EAST KING STREET - SIIIPPENSRURG, PA 172871797 DEALER: ADDRESS: aj?> W /f g7L.,C A CRY: 04" ?Plelw I; v? ENTER MY ORDER FOR ONE. L( -? 4 DATE YEMt? 19 MMIE MODEL ODOMETER Lq4LM4 NO. 'OIt l1LI.u 1119951'6 20 t 1`gj /OVd/ COLOR a STOCK NO, CAR SALES PRICE r - TOTAL PURCHASE PRICE 3 - DELIVERY & HANDLING DEPOSR a' TAX 97 p MD CAR AUDMMM S FILING ?.I J LESS LIEN $ L1C. PLATES A , , d LA) HELD BY S p.v rV EOUITY ;Iu +' CASH ONDELIVERY a i O T ou se I n lhs wdform for The inlortnatt thveh?b b of this eonfred.lnformation on the window form overrides any contrary TOTAL PURCHASE P VICE S provisions to the contract of sale. TRADE IN RECORD Car trect b bsle RUT!g of S seM 19 mead due 19 r[aa• MM? MODEL ?( BODY OOl0r1 19•' ? i .U..?A Y' U N/. oooM[r eE . "0 4 l4 $ VFW l Trnt Ma arm "a a SOLD 1 ?r m.se mN WrtM., kWmn* w[naA arY 9wrante.. e.presaad a .rotMd, by des outer or No wad. AS IS. custoe s sonanne i we Be dwW wwarMY W[ veil for after d![rerY one ?_ retal OeW o1 perN N I SOLD WITH Moor wed lown.r ware and eater p.Y. >=-a aMl mai eo.l a o.rD .nB rea WARRANTY. wadi. AM r.D.na mwt be mad. M our Mrvoe Moo or stops eulMnsed by outer mob named. we do not warranty ttek benery, glens. 0006IwtN or rada I agree to to- SS. W a ?R / Ph" t OryerY SprMtury Address l THIS OHOKM 15 NOT VAUD UNLESS SIGNED AND ACCEPTED BY DEALER -'? { Salesman ACCagted by AUTOL04E FORM .4300 EXHIBIT I DEALER 351ORMURE 19 ? ' t IA^Csw•A PHONE: J' S/ i SATE LP n TRUCK OR AS FOLLOWS: BOOM UO NP. ? BUYERS GUIDE IMPORTANT: Spoken promises are dlfflcult to enforce. Ask the dealer to put all promises In writing. Keep this form. A/i.sfPN MIII- y- i?t? VEHICLE LAKE MODEL YEAR TNiHallP9S1f6ao52-0 VIN NUMBER WARRANTIES FOR THIS VEHICLE: ? AS IS - NO WARRANTY YOU WILL PAY ALL COSTS FOR ANY REPAIRS. THE DEALER ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY REPAIRS REGARDLESS OF ANY ORAL STATEMENTS ABOUT THE VEHICLE. ZWARRANTY ? FULL LIMITED WARRANTY. The dealer will pay 50%ofthelaborand Sy % of the parts for the covered systems that fail during the warranty period. Ask the dealer for a copy of the warranty document for a full explanation of warranty coverage, exclusions, and the dealer's repair obligations. Under state law, "implied warranties" may give you even more rights. SYSTEMS COVERED: DURATION: All ???- ? SERVICE CONTRACT. Aservice contract isavailable atanextra charge onthis vehicle. Askfor details as to coverage, deductible, price, and exclusio ' Diu a aerv ice contract within 90 days of the time of sale, state law "Implied warranties" y \ J ?j?p dditioltal rights. PRE PURCHASE INSPECTION: ASK THE DEALER IF YOU Y HAVE THIS/?V?`EJ\HICLE INSPECTED BY YOUR MECHANIC EITHER ON OR OFF THE LOT. SEE THE BACK OF THIS FORM for Important additional Information, including a list of some mayor defects that may occur In used motor vehicles. EXHIBIT 2 YEAR: MAKE: MODEL: WIl4xi MA. 14 uS Se ENGINE: V(o - 3.0 TRANSMISSION: MILEAGE: fS7 OPTIONS: (rp?,pEp ... S(?nlQooF... All cars sold with a 30 day--50/50 warranty, all components covered EXCEPT: Tires / Radio / A/C Down Payment: 11000 Weekly Payments: S 50. '! Total Price: 4 3995 sfc Wae +sOW EXHIBIT 3 WILLIAM R. MARK (1912.1950) JERRY A. WEIGLE DAVID P. PERKINS Auodete JOSEPH P. RVANE MARK, WEIGLE AND PEIMNS Attorneys-at-Law 126 EAST KING STREET SHIPPENSBURG, PENNSYLVANIA 17257.1797 TELEPIIONE (717) 532.7798 or (717) 77642" PAX (717) $726552 3 September, 1999 CCR's Motor Car Company Attn: Mr. Calvin Roth Mr. Chris Robinson 705 East King Street Shippensburg, PA 17257 Gentlemen: This office represents Michael S. Richardson of 8534 Rowe Run Road, Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, with respect to the problems which have occurred subsequent to his purchase of a 1988 Nissan Maxima SE back on May 20, 1999. Mr. Richardson has had use of this vehicle for less than two weeks since the date of purchase due to a transmission problem that you either can't fix, won't fix or won't have repaired by someone else due to the expense involved. As you well know, the car broke down while under warranty, thereby obligating you to repair it under your advertised 50-50 warranty plan. Understandably, Mr. Richardson's frustration level is very high. As 1 understand it, you have $2,251.20 of Mr. Richardson's money and the car itself, which you refuse to repair. Mr. Richardson refuses to continue to make payments to you on a car he can't drive and which you refuse to repair. To break the impasse, our client has authorized me to propose the following: I. Return the S2,251.20 immediately in exchange for a release from all liability for damages and expenses incurred by Mr. Richardson to date - you keep the car. 2. Fix the car - CCR and Mr. Richardson each to pay 1/2 of the cost of repairs - Mr. Richardson to be given a 1 year warranty on the transmission and a new thirty (30) day warranty on the vehicle, both to begin when Mr. Richardson again takes possession of the vehicle after the necessary repairs have been made. Repairs must be completed and the car delivered to Mr. Richardson on or before September 15, 1999. Mr. Richardson will resume his installment payments to CCR's immediately. Substitute transportation will be provided to Mr. Richardson by CCR's until repairs have been completed. EXHIBIT 4 ...._. .............. ... - , ........ CCR's Motor Car Company Page 2 September 2, 1999 If neither of the above alternatives is acceptable, suit will be filed immediately seeking the return of the purchase price paid to date, interest, costs of suit, and legal fees. Give this matter your immediate attention and contact either Mr. Richardson or myself within five (5) business days from your receipt of this correspondence. Very truly yours, MARK, WEIGLE AND PERKINS Jerry A. Weigle JAW:egf cc: Michael Richardson FROM: CCR's MOTOR CAR CO. 705 East King Street Shippensburg, PA 17257 PH#: (717) 530-5652 FAX#:(717) 530-2455 TO: '.t DATE: 19 REF: NOTICE OF REPOSSESSING Dear ?C? Q 1 `?Y Ilt? 1 t Please be advised th the ? 11?UkM0. VIN#:3gkijUkkg1ST1o2o-LU is being considered a repossession as of this date. This vehicle is. now in.storage at CCR's Motor Car Co., at 705 E. King St.,'Shippensburg PA., 17257 and will be held there for Fifteen (15) darom today's date, which will expire on ?il:!?k a 1W. The amount of $i4*@e for repossessing this vehicle and a $10.00 A DAY LATE CHARGE FEE after the pa n due date is days, plus the remaining balance of $ 2b - from our contract. P1sd postage fees of $ 2• The total amount of $ ZC.'47A 0 is required in order to redeem this vehicle. This must be oaid at our office by You within this Fifteen (15) If this amount is not received by 10:00 A.M. on the next business day following the expiration of the Fifteen (15) day period, this vehicle will be sold from the above address. If the price that we receive when sold, is not enough to cover the amount that you owe, then YOU COULD BE HELD LIABLE FOR ANY DEFICIENCY BALANCE. Sincerely, F:XIIIBIT 5 Cha;uapho? S Q.rrtl Calvin W. Roth Jr. WILLIAM R. DIARK(1912.1910) JERRY A. WEIGLE DAVID P. PERKINS Anodete JOSEPH P. RUANE MARK, WEIGLE AND PERKINS Attorneys-at-Law 126 EAST KING STREET SHIPPENSBURG. PENNSYLVANIA 17257.1397 TELEPHONE (717) 532.7368 or (717) 7764295 FAX (717) 572-M2 CCR's Motor Car Company ATrN: Mr. Calvin Roth Mr. Chris Roth 705 East King Street Shippensburg, PA 17257 Re: Michael S. Richardson; 1988 Nissan Maxima SE Gentlemen 17 September, 1999 You will recall that I contacted you by letter dated September 2, 1999 with respect to the above captioned matter. Chris Roth's telephone response to me on Friday, September 10 was to the effect that nothing more would be done. This response was followed by a written document sent to Mr. Richardson, dated September 3, 1999 entitled, "Notice of Repossessing". Based on the above, our client hereby gives you notice of revocation of his acceptance with respect to his automobile purchase agreement pursuant to 13 Pa. C.S.A. § 2608 (b). Demand is hereby made for the return of all monies paid by Mr. Richardson under his agreement to purchase said 1988 Nissan Maxima SE within ten (10) days from receipt of this communication to wit, the full sum of $2251.20. Should this sum not be returned within ten days as demanded, suit will be filed immediately in the Courts of Cumberland County, Pennsylvania to collect said sum, plus interest, costs of suit and damages. Very truly yours MARK. WEIGLE AND Ck , A. Weigle JAW/line cc Michael S. Richardson EXHIBIT 6 F? ,r, u: CT r ? ) rµ ? ? u cam; (n u V n 0 O M rn i Z F ? ? N 47f? VHF 0 . . . IN THE COURT OF COMMN PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL S. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff vs. CCR,S MOTOR CAR COMPANY, INC.,: Defendant CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 1999 - 6564 CIVIL TERM NOTICE TO PLEAD TO: Michael S. Richardson YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED TO PLEAD to the within New Matter within twenty (20) days of service hereof. Failure to do so will result in the entry ofa Judgment of Non Pros against you. Dated: ?a 3U J?? Sally J. inder, Attorney for Defendant, CCR's Motor Car Company, Inc. IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL S. RICHARDSON, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiff VS. NO. 1999 - 6564 CIVIL TERM CCR,S MOTOR CAR COMPANY, INC.,: Defendant DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT AND NEW MATTER COMES NOW the defendant, CCR's Motor Car Company, Inc., by its undersigned attorney, and answers plaintiff,, Michael S. Richardson's Complaint as follows: COUNT ONE 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted. 7. Admitted in part and denied in part. Admitted that defendant repaired plaintiff's vehicle. Admitted that defendant's loss of use of his vehicle commenced approximately May 29, 1999. Denied that plaintiff's loss of use of his vehicle continued until July 2, 1999. On the contrary, the necessary repairs to plaintiff's vehicle were completed by June 18, 1999, and plaintiff was notified that the repairs were completed. If plaintiff neglected to pick up the vehicle at defendant's place of business until July 2, 1999, that neglect was his decision and responsibility. Plaintiff could have picked up the vehicle two weeks earlier than July 2, 1999. Page 1 R. Denied. As to the averment of the date when the vehicle broke down a second time, defendant, after reasonable investigation, lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of said averment, and the same is therefore denied. Proof at the trial of the case is demanded. The remaining averments arc also denied. On the contrary, defendant had the vehicle towed to its place of business on July 27, 1999, from the place on Roxbury Road at the rear of the former Cressler's Store where the vehicle had apparently broken down. Defendant attempted to have the transmission malfunction repaired by towing the vehicle to Ridgley's Automotive in Fayetteville on August 4, 1999. Defendant learned that the vehicle would require a new transmission and had the vehicle towed back to its place of business on August 7, 1999, shortly after which defendant placed an order for a new transmission for the vehicle. Defendant has not refused to return the vehicle to plaintiff, defendant was simply retaining the vehicle until the new transmission was shipped and could be installed. 9. Admitted. 10. Admitted. 11. Denied. Defendant, after reasonable investigation, lacks knowledge and information sufficient to form an opinion as to the truth of the averments of paragraph 11. and the same are denied. Proof thereof at the trial of the case is demanded. 12. Admitted. 13. Admitted. 14. Admitted. WHEREFORE, defendant prays that, as to the cause of action set forth in Count One, the Court deny the relief sought by plaintiff and find in favor of defendant, and dismiss the whole of Count One with prejudice to plaintiff. COUNT TWO 15. Defendant restates the averments of paragraphs I through 14 of its Answer, incorporating said averments herein by reference thereto. 16. Denied. To the contrary, defendant avers that the terms of the express warranty, as contained in plaintiffs Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3 of the complaint, speak for themselves. Defendant further avers that there were no oral warranties with respect to the vehicle. Defendant further avers that the terms of the installment sales contract between the parties excluded all warranties except warranties in writing. A copy of paragraph 19 of said installment sales contract is attached hereto and marked Defendant's Exhibit 1. The original section of the contract does not copy well but is available fbr inspection by plaintiff of or the Court. Page 2 17. Admitted, with the further stipulation that said express warranty is the warranty set out in plaintiff's Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3 of the complaint. 18. Denied. On the contrary, defendant avers that it complied fully with the tcmis of the express warranty provided to plaintiff. Defendant repaired the first transmission malfunction, paying the entire cost of repairs and towing itself. Defendant was in the process of getting a new transmission for the vehicle alter the second malfunction, when plaintiff stopped making the agreed-upon installment payments and thereby committed a breach of his contract with defendant Defendant avers that its express warranty was not that the vehicle would be free of defects, only that for a period of 30 days of delivery of the vehicle, defendant would share the cost of repairing any defects on a 50-50 basis. 19. Admitted. 20. Admitted. 21. Denied. On the contrary, defendant avers that it had corrected all vehicle defects or was in the process of correcting vehicle defects until plaintiff committed a breach of his contract obligations with defendant by stopping installment payments in August, 1999, after which time defendant's exercised its right to repossess the vehicle and was under no further obligation to plaintiff as to the repairs thereof. WHEREFORE, defendant prays that, as to the cause of action set forth in Count Two, the Court deny the relief sought by plaintiff and find in favor of defendant, and dismiss the whole of Count Two with prejudice to plaintiff. COUNT THREE 22. Defendant restates the averments of paragraphs I through 21 of its Answer, incorporating said averments herein by reference thereto. 23. Denied. To the contrary, defendant avers that the 1988 used car with odometer mileage over 95,000 miles which plaintiff purchased was well within the standard of similar vehicles. The reverse side of the Buyer's Guide provided to plaintiff, which contained the express written warranty, contained a list of major defects which may occur in used motor vehicles, among them being transmission and drive shall defects. A copy of the reverse side of the Buyer's Guide is attached hereto and marked Defendant's Exhibit 2. Defendant avers that it did not make any implied warranties to plaintiff, as evidenced by the language of Defendant's Exhibit I. WI IEREFORE, defendant prays that, as to the cause of action set forth in Count Three, the Court deny the relief sought by plaintiff and find in favor of defendant, and dismiss the whole of Count Three with prejudice to plaintiff. Page 3 COUNT FOUR 24. Defendant restates the averments ol'parugmphs I through 23 of its Answer, incorporating said averments herein by reference thereto. 25. Admitted. 26. Denied. On the contrary, defendant avers that the vehicle was always within the particular standard or a used car more than eleven years old and having over 95,000 miles on the odometer and being prone to major defects as stated on the document which is attached as Defendant's Exhibit 2. Defendant further avers that it did never refuse to repair the vehicle according to the terms of the 30 days warranty, but in fact paid all of the costs of repair in the first instance and was prepared to do so with respewt to the new transmission, except that plaintiff committed a breach of his installment sales contract before that happened. 27. Denied, as conclusions of law to which no responsive factual pleading need be set forth. 28. Admitted in part and denied in part. Admitted that plaintiff purchased the vehicle as a consumer. Remaining averments are denied. On the contrary, defendant avers that no damages to plaintiff, and no ascertainable loss, may be attributed to the actions and practices of defendant. 29. Denied. To the contrary, defendant avers that it has not violated the law in any way, shape or form. Defendant never represented the vehicle as being more than it was, an eleven year old car with over 95, 000 miles on the odometer and susceptible to major defects in all systems. Defendant at all times complied with its responsibilities and obligations under the express warranty given, which was the only warranty given with respect to the transaction. Defendant avers that, since it did comply with the terms of its express written warranty, defendant could not be the source ofany confusion and misunderstanding on the part of the plaintiff. Wl IEREFORE, defendant prays that, as to the cause of action set forth in Count Four, the Court deny the relief sought by plaintiff and find in favor of defendant, and dismiss the whole of Count Four with prejudice to plaintiff. NEW MATTER For further defense of this case, defendant avers the following New Matter: 30.'fhe defects plaintiff experienced with his vehicle were caused by plaintiff's abuse and misuse of the vehicle. Page 4 31. During the time that plaintiff drove the vehicle, he subjected it to extraordinary stress and abuse, by constantly "popping" the clutch and pushing the engine to high revolutions before and during the changing of gears. 32. The way plaintiff drove the vehicle was beyond and outside the scope of ordinary and reasonable use of a vehicle of this age and mileage. 33. The misuse and abuse of the vehicle by plaintiff was the cause of both the transmission defects suffered by the vehicles. 34. The express warranty given by defendant was for a period of 30 days ufler delivery of the vehicle. 35. The vehicle was delivered on May 20. 1999. 36. The 30 days express written warranty expired on June 19, 1999, one day after defendant had repaired the first transmission defect. Defendant did not do or say anything which would have extended the warranty period 37. Defendant repaired all defects experienced by the vehicle during the warranty period. 38. Plaintiff attempted to revoke his acceptance of the vehicle covered by the installment sales contract after he had committed a breach of this contract by stopping the installment payments contemplated by the contract. 39. Plaintiff had no basis, in law or in fact, to revoke his acceptance of the contract with defendant. 40. Plaintiff was not entitled to revoke his acceptance of the contract with defendant after he had committed a breach of that contract by unilaterally halting the installment payments due under the contract. WI IEREFORE, defendant prays that the Court enter judgment in favor of defendant and against plaintiff on all counts of the complaint, and dismiss all counts of the complaint with prejudice. Page 5 JW? Sully J. nder, Attorney for Defendant, CCR's Motor Cur Company, Inc. 701 East King St. Shippcnsburg, PA 17257 532-9476 1?D.A 4F1"ar ?f W {: h ty' ±4 r? Page 6 VERIFICATION I verify that the facts set forth in the foregoing Answer and New Matter are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I am an authorized agent of the defendant corporation. I understand that false statements hcrcin are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. section 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Dated: 7?'q----- 3c> 'CIA ifs aka:. . r},s .rt. Z "19. THERE ARE NO WARRANTIES BY SELLER, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, UNLESS WE I IAVE GIVEN YOU A SEPARATE WRITTEN WARRANTY." DEFENDANT'S EXHIBIT 1 Below is a list of some major defects that may occur in used motor vehicles. Frame 6 Body Fra•no-cracks, corrosive welds, or rustod through Doguaeks-benl or twisted home Engine Oil leakage, excluding normal seopago Cracked block or head Dolls missing or Inoperable Knocks or misses related to camshaft IAtors and push rods Abnormal exhaust discharge Transmission A Drive Shan improper fluid [oval or leakage, excluding normal seepage Cracked or damaged case which Is wsdee Abnormal noise or vibration caused by lautty transmission or drive shaft Improper shifting In any gear Manual Clutch slips or chatters Differential Improper fluid level or leakage excluding notnutl seepage Cracked of damaged housing which is visible Abnormal noise or vibration caused by faulty diherennal Cooling System Leakage including radiator Improperly functioning water pump Electrical System Battery leakage Improperly functioning alternator, generator, battery, or starlet Fuel System, Visible feakage Inoperable Accessories ; Gaugesor warping devicus Air conditioner - Hoalor d Defroster Drake System Failure wammg light brokon Pedel not firm under pressure (DOT specs.) Not enough pedal roserye (DOT specs ) Does not stop Vahicto ei straight (DOT specs.) Hosos damaged Drum or rotor too thin (rAlgr. Specs.) Lining or pad thickness less man w-u inch Power unit not operating or seeking Structural or mocnan¢al pans damaged Steering System Too much free play at steering wheel (DOT spots) Freu play in linkage more than Vs Inch Steering gear bends or jams Front whuuls akgncd improperly (DOT specs.) Power unit belts craekad or slipping Power unit fluid level improper Suspension System Doll joint seals damaged Structual pans bent or damaged Stabilizer bar msconneeted Spring broken Shock absorber mounting loose Rubber bushings damaged or missmg Radius rod damaged or missing Shock absorber looking or functioning improperly Tires Tread depth less than "w inch Sites mismatched Visible damago Wheels Visible cracks, damage or repairs Mounting boas loose or missing Exhaust System Leakage DEALER CCR'S Motor Car Co A/S 17257 SEE FOR COMP WNTS IMPORTANT. The Information on this form Is part of any contract to buy this vehicle. Removal of this label before consumer purchase (except for purpose of test-driving) is a violation of federal law (16 C.F.R. 455). I H VE READ 10 ?' OPY OF THE BUYCRS GUIDE ON THIS VEHICLE. $IGNA ARE De'FG N`I?ANT ?S j?x ll3lrt' Z YJ F r, r. , SfF a ? 2 f `x of Y ? J.• CA. 3 ? f Yl. 1 • T ? f 1!3 7 ? % , 14, rn c3 Z", txf s 7 r: rr e a Y3x a. ?T Y 'M 3 V'= } r V 7 v? G F• i ?. i Fu 4 A Y to p i }i 5L ^ IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Michael S. Richardson, CIVIL ACTION - LAW Plaintiff, V. NO. 1999 - 6564 Civil Term CCR's Motor Car Company, Inc. Defendant. AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA : SS. COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND State Constable Donald L. Flagle II, being duly swom according to law, deposes and says that on Friday, October 29,1999, around or about 3:45 p.m. he served a true and attested copy of the Complaint in the above captioned action upon the Defendant, CCR's Motor Car Company, Inc., by hand delivering said copy to Chris Roth, an adult and employee of CCR's Motor Car Company, Inc. at the following address: CCR's Motor Car Company, Inc. 705 East King Street Shippensburg,PA 17257 Constable Sworn to and subscribed before me this 291h day of October, 1999, 1 Notary Public NOWW st?{"a.?st>L p O4mG1rf1?D?e?Wd?0o1 aY kL` ?.t',tn:9DISa Es^Nt1,M{kffi MARK, WEIGLE AND PERKINS - ATTORNEYS AT LAW - 120 EAST VINO STNCET - SIIIPPENSIIURO, PA 17]S7.1]07 i U ) I y k H tr"i?Yh t r hr Ifk.i i?i r'=p his 1y1? IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA MICHAEL S. RICHARDSON, Plaintiff, vs. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 1999-6564 CIVIL TERM CCR'S MOTOR CAR COMPANY, INC.,: Defendant. PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: Jerry A. Weigle, counsel for the plaintiff in the above action, respectfully represents that: 1. The above-captioned action is at issue 2. The claim of the plaintiff in the action is $8,608.35. The counterclaim of the defendant in the action is 0. The following attorneys are interested in the case as counsei or are otherwise disqualified to sit as arbitrators: Sally Winder, Esquire, David Perkins, Esquire, Joseph Ruanc, Esquire. WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint three (3) arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted. Respectfully submittc (r? r I A. cigle, Esquire Attorney for the Plaintiff ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, L2-5 , 2000, in considc ation of the foregoing petition, ter rcce• ' _Esq., ;?s Luu ?/i ?e? q., and iG, F. a Esq., are appointed arbitrators in the above captioned% cti as prayed for. B P.J. MANN. WEIGLE AND PERKINS - ATTORNEYS AT LAW - 126 EAST KIND sTNrr.T - SHIPPENSDUNG. PA 17257.1397 A c : ?r5 ? yC r `J x oa w y l 44 _ tn 44 A4 i N H zy 94 G. it < ° 91, ? A. Ow a yr is E. w d F .Jr?. -C g6 U U FA I t+. ..a d. K S W? G? V. r r C 6 4i C y 1-4 U Z ID O x t ; F H O i< i? T 4i y I ' U 6rnF , o v < . xW P4 M H F W • ~ • W y p , ? rr G R. 'r D a ! H U U U. U IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA Michael S. Richardson, Plaintiff, V. CCR's Motor Car Company, Inc. Defendant. CIVIL ACTION - LAW NO. 1999 - 6564 CIVIL TERM PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO NEW MATTER COMES NOW the Plaintiff, Michael S. Richardson, by his undersigned attorney, and answers Defendant, CCR's Motor Car Company, Inc.'s new Matter as follows: 30. Denied. The plaintiff knows how to operate a manual transmission vehicle and operated the vehicle in question in a safe and proper manner at all times relevant to this proceeding. Strict proof to the contrary is demanded at trial. 31. Denied. The defendant did not "pop" the clutch, push the engine to high revolutions, or in any other manner abuse or misuse the vehicle in question and strict proof to the contrary is demanded at trial. 32. Denied. Plaintiffs answers to paragraphs 30 and 31 of the New Matter arc incorporated herein by reference thereto. 33. Denied. Plaintiffs answers to paragraphs 30 and 31 of the New Matter are incorporated herein by reference thereto. 34. Admitted. 35. Admitted. By way of further answer the vehicle in question broke down on May 29, 1999, for the first time since plaintiff took delivery which was well within the express warranty period. 36. Paragraph 36 of Defendant's New Matter is a conclusion of law and, therefore, requires no answer. 37. Denied. The vehicle was not properly repaired when the transmission malfunctioned on May 29, 1999, and still has not been repaired. , 38. Paragraph 38 of Defendant's New Matter is a conclusion of law and, therefore, requires no answer. MARK. WEIGLE AND PERKINS - ATTORNEYS AT LAW - 126 CAST KING STNIXT - SIIIPPENSIIURG, PA 11257 1397 39. Paragraph 39 of Defendant's New Matter is a conclusion of law and, therefore, requires no answer. 40. Paragraph 40 of Defendant's New Matter is a conclusion of law and, therefore, requires no answer. BY: WEIGLE, PERKINS AND Ct Jc A. Wei le, Esquire I Attorney for aintiff 126 East King Street Shippensburg, PA 17257 717-532-7388 MANN. WEIGLE AND PERKINS - ATTORNEYS AT LAW - 126 EAST KING STREET - 511111PEN511URG. PA 17257-1301 VERIFICATION I verify that the statements made in the foregoing Answer to New Matter are true and correct. I understand that false statements herein arc made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904, relating to unswom falsification to authorities, Michael S. Richardson f ko JSa iF j § lf "]ZK' u AAxx.? Y j2 *? AS 19:' ' i n:ew4S"3 .. i icy t y ?q xy k? 2 d? 4 1 5 bi ?? 91 X ` 4 S MARK, WEIGLE ANO PERKINS - ATTORNEYS AT LAW - 126 EAST KING STREET - S16PPENSBORG, PA t7767.1707 '?, L?: ... N 44 ° e z H ro u > ? C ? i .- ,? z fs.s ~" w ow ae < < " o u oa q N C B ? a, 4 u T F- y " < > < C: 16 v? R? 0 :1 14 lF s G u° > cc o ti V Gmoc a u I ko 0 ? r 1 0 u e 0 to 3 1 H ' oG 6 < rl .'S. t.0 H ti a 0% w M < h ? N .C 01 H . + p ?i W.0 ?4 G V 14 0 N U u z p. MI ??{EI S. ?.1?`1ardCen ) V. ) 5 01 c, Oar' cor-I c . ) In ?he Court of Co=on ?laas of ? l/ Cumberland County, ?ennsylvania YO.65,?// /, avut-vrw) 19qj OATS Ile do sole=.Ly swear (or affirm) that we will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Cc=on- f our office with fidelity. wealth and that we vill discharge the dut14r sph?,.,4 6, Cle,t?k ur 'rc {/ GrL . - - - PatY?c?n.B?own <L ?LT.?-n/ Y?' ?h+f.v?r.. AWARD We, the undersigned arbitrators, having been duly appointed and sworn (or affirmed), make the following award: (Noce: If damages for delay are awarded, they shall be separately stated.) , applicable.) Data of Searing: 2? of Data of Award: 612Y N Arbitrator, dissents. (Insert name if NOTICr OF Ma "IT OF AWARD Now, the 1 Ya' day ai u. ,_ E8 %oiti; at -4:17 , /? AS. , the above award vas entered upon the o,-. and notice thrnof given by mail co the parties or their actoraays. {??e?? Arbitrators' compensation to be paid upon appeal: I 1 n o .onocary S 94o.UU 97: Depucy C-7 NcAo Gy, .may / 7 - L/T -- I'94? 3 ? S - 32- --- (?-4 ? 4 l'C. W c lrrl .. L •J ? ?y t F IN TxL COURT OF CCWMIT FIZAS v. PAW4 ' CME M COUNT!, F2riaTS'_2-/A?TIA ?e s /nad?,r ,1nr-. NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM A'dARD OF PO?RI? OF ARBITRATORS TO T-?ROTEONCTARY: PTotice is given that appeals from the award of the board of arbitrators entered in this case on JCw 'Ig 24v-j> A fury trial is demanded d (Cheekk box if a jury trial 's demanded. Cthemise fury trial is waived.) I hereby certify that (1) the compensation of the arbitrators has been paid, or (2) application ms been made for cermissior to proceed ir: .forma pauperis. (Strike out the i:nappli::abl9 clause.) Aprellan or Attorney for Aprellart itCTE: The- demand for fury trial or. appeal from compulsory arbitration is Souerned by '.Rule 1007.1 (b). (b) No affidavit or verification is recuired. ?= cr t.. ,;j Ill tJ. LI) Qq I?j C? U ? r?'