Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-1613TH OF COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Judicial District, County Of NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT COMMON PLEAS No. 06 -1G IIJ C. T - NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the District Justice on the date and in the case referenced below. ev 9Uk;6 C/-:3 - 0S I K fft+Je77/ N =-";;6 svE?v ETNA ? ooooo 4 This block will be signed ONLY when this notation is required under Pa. R.C.P.D.J. No. 10086. This Notice of Appeal, when received by the District Justice, will operate as a SUPERSEDEAS to the judgment for possession in this case. Sgoal m of Prothonotary or Deputy in action before a District Justice, A COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED within twenty (20) days after riling the NOTICE of APPEAL. PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE (This section of form to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa.R.C.P.D.J. No. 1001(7) in action before District Justice. IF NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee. PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary Enter rule upon L%2S` `J--5_? 7t-`43-?t appellee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal f Name of appellee(s) (Common Pleas No. ) within twenty (20) days after service of rule or suffer entry of judgment of non pros. y Signature of ellant or attomeoragent RULE: To ??II?.y?? 1 > S?YN * ?? , appellee(s) _T Nameolappellee(s) (1) You are notified that a rule is hereby entered upon you to file a complaint in this appeal within twenty (20) days after the date of service of this rule upon you by personal service or by certified or registered mail. (2) If you do not file a complaint within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. (3) The date of service of this rule if service was by mail is the date of the mailing. Date: 20 © (o a (O /Yf iIJZ signature of Prothonotary or Deputy YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT FORM WITH THIS NOTICE OF APPEAL. AOPC 312-02 WHITE-COURT FILE TO BE FILED WITH PROTHONOTARY GREEN-COURTFILE YELLOW-APPELLANT'S COPY PINK-COPY TO BE SERVED ON APPELLEE GOLD-COPY TO BE SERVED ON DISTRICT JUSTICE PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OFAPPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT (This proof of service MUST BE FILED WITHIN TFN (10) DAYS AFTER filing of the notice of appeal. Check applicable boxes.) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF ss AFFIDAVIT: I hereby (swear) (affirm) that I served L] a copy of the Notice of Appeal, Common Pleas , upon the District Justice designated therein on (date of service) ® by personal service LA by (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto, and upon the appellee, (name) on 20 ® by personal service ? by (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto. (SWORN) (AFFIRMED) AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF 20 Signature of official before whom affrda?a wa, mane Title of ofAciel My commission expires on 20... P J y? 1 b\ i 0 ?O) kt ? I Z ?I?dd 90?Z 3?1i pT lj ?0 i 03/21/2066 09:50 7177662238 DISTRICTJUSTICE PAGE 01 r COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA rrnm,eur.auo 11 M" D6t. No.: 09-3-05 MDJ NfiMel HO ]MARK KhRTIN A001B tt1 507 It YORK ST MECHANICSBURG, PA 7eiev,,, (717) 766-4575 17055 *ARK XARTIN 507 N YORK ST MBCHANICSSURG, PA 11055 NOTICE OFCJIVDGCASE (TRANSCRIPT PLAINTIFF: NAME,dADORFSS rLONG, STEVEN & LISA 14 REYNOLDS ST MECWMICSBURG, PA 17055 L J VS. DEFENDANT NAMeano AODRES8 FG SVRG DRA R&GUR QLTY WTR SIISQ VLY7 BO% 523 LILITZ, PA 17543 L J =No,: 041-06 06 THIS IS TO NOTIFY YOU THAT: Judgment: _"R VLAINTIrr ® Judgment was entered for: (Name) T.nxaf RT7i'il7 N n r TAX ® Judgment was entered against: (Name)_ r nTmn ++n* IIAGM nl-XX XTIF SIISQ VLY - in the amount of $ 4,491-00 on: ? Defendants are jointly and severally liable. ? Damages will be assessed on: F] This case dismissed without prejudice. (Date of Judgment) 11,17106 (Date & Time) Amount of Judgment Judgment Costs Interest on Judgment Attorney Fees Total Amount of Judgment Subject to ? Attachment/42 Pa.C.S. § 8127 S ? Portion of Judgment for physical damages arising out of residential lease $ Post Judgment Credits $ J.,uyn eni Cosisa Judgment Total ANY PARTY HAS THE RIGHT TO APPEAL WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT BY FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL WITH THE PROTHONOTARY/CLERK OF THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, CIVIL DIVISION. YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THIS NOTICE OF JUDGMENT/TRANSCRIPT FORM WITH YOUR NOTICE OF APPEAL. EXCEPT AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE FOR MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGES, IF THE JUDGEMENT HOLDER ELECTS TO ENTER THE JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, ALL FURTHER PROCESS MUST COMF FROM THE COI IRT nF cnmIMON PI FAC 6Arn No FI IQTHGO PQI GCF naA V OF icm,cn CV THG nn AaIcTGVi Ai nicTOWT It IMc= UNLESS THE JUDGMENT IS ENTERED IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. ANYONE INTERESTED IN THE JUDGMENT MAY FILE A REQUEST FOR ENTRY OF SATISFACTION WITH THE MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT JUDGE IF THE JUDGMENT DEBTOR PAYS IN FULL, SETTLES, OR OTHERWISE COMPLIES WITH THE JUDGMENT. l 21541 Date ?& 1Magisterial District Judge I certify that this is a true and correct copy of the record of the proceedings containing the judgment. Date Magisterial DistnCt Judge My commission expires first Monday of January. 2012 . SEAL AOPC 315-05 DATE PRINTED; 3/17/06 8:30a5S AN no no q, C3 ED w.j. _ 1 ?{? a..' is p a.u sce? o p ltnm emc thr} ., ? ? N C3 f e ' v=r e ? ? Z rn '1"i wors .r F 1 Y??_i:-1 e. 'Zt 'r y -{ rLi ti '.. 4. y t 1 Iu.,iY/? ?'ir rV m o -ij rviShee.AprV-O- sr o Peaa Y ?_ city tiiaic ? s I n PROOF l OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OFAPPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT (This proof of service MUST BE FILED WITHIN 7N 9) LAYS .11 Fi filing of the notice of appeal. Check applicable boxes.) COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA COUNTY OF CCr..,..Cwsc ss Al I hereby (swear) (affirm) that I served ? a copy of the Notice of Appeal, Common Pleas f G -/6 IS. upon the District Justice designated therein on (date of service) 1`tW, 21 , 20 ,0,6 , rl 161.by personal service ? by (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto, and upon the appellee, (name) Z..1on 21 , 20 06 ? by personal service 4Y (certified) (registered) mail, sender's receipt attached hereto. (SWORN) (AFFIRMED) AND BSCFjIBED BEFORE ME THIS DAY OF 4 20 Signature of r?r 1 efcre whom affidavit was made Title of official My commission expires on NXit,?f 20 NOTARIALSEAI [JM S. SMIT}LNOTARY PjBLJC Cerlisk 3om C<oj* r1 Comissior. pril 4, 2009 ignaNre of af-t L? IpRMVnYYeAL IA Vr rCIVN0 TL COURT OF COMMON PLEAS Judicial District, County Of NOTICE OF APPEAL FROM DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMENT COMMON PLEAS No. NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is given that the appellant has filed in the above Court of Common Pleas an appeal from the judgment rendered by the District Justice on the date and in the case referenced below. NAME OF APPELLANT I MAG DIST. NO. NAME OF O.J. ADDRESS FAPPELLANI CITY STATE ZIP CODE DATE OF JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF (Pla-Mfn gil^ (Defendantl' ' .r_> f ,. ?. r`7"fe.t...t .?,.'...?.?9•a D KET No. SIGNATURE OF APPEL T O ATTO N V OR AGENT This block will be signed ONLY when this notation is required under Pa. R.C.P.D.J. No. 1008B. This Notice of Appeal, when received by the District Justice, will operate as a SUPERSEDEAS to the judgment for possession in this case. Signature of Prothonotary or DeWly was before a District Justice, A COMPLAINT MUST BE FILED within twenty (20) days after filing the NOTICE of APPEAL. PRAECIPE TO ENTER RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT AND RULE TO FILE (This section of form to be used ONLY when appellant was DEFENDANT (see Pa.R.C.P.D.J. No. 1001(7) in action before District Justice. IF NOT USED, detach from copy of notice of appeal to be served upon appellee. PRAECIPE: To Prothonotary Enter rule upon.'' y? %. rtC'• f,? , • " appellee(s), to file a complaint in this appeal Name of appelleels) (Common Pleas No. ) within twenty (20) days after service of rule or suffer entry of judgment of non pros. v? Signature o/Ilant or attomey or agent RULE: To appellee(s) Name ofappellee(s) (1) You are notified that a rule is hereby entered upon you to file a complaint in this appeal within twenty (20) days after the date of service of this rule upon you by personal service or by certified or registered mail. (2) If you do not file a complaint within this time, a JUDGMENT OF NON PROS MAY BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU. (3) The date of service of this rule if service was by mail is the date of the mailing. Date: 20 Signafare of Prothonotary or Deputy YOU MUST INCLUDE A COPY OF THE NOTICE OF JUDGMENTITRANSCRIPT FORM WITH THIS NOTICE OF APPEAL. AOPC 312-02 WHITE- COURT FILE TO BE FILED WITH PROTHONOTARY GREEN -COURT FILE YELLOW- APPELLANT'S COPY PINK-COPY TO BE SERVED ON APPELLEE GOLD-COPVTO BE SERVED ON DISTRICT JUSTICE 66 - /W-3 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STEVEN LONG AND LISA LONG PLAINTIFFS V. DOCKET NO. CV-0000041-06 GARY BURG D/B/A HAGUE QUALITY WATER OF SUSQUEHANNA VALLEY, 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 (20) days after 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 are 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 GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW. THIS OFFICE CAN PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT HIRING A LAWYER. IF YOU CANNOT AFFORD TO HIRE A LAWYER, THIS OFFICE MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT AGENCIES THAT MAY OFFER LEGAL SERVICES TO ELIGIBLE PERSONS AT A REDUCED FEE OR NO FEE. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania Telephone Number 249-3166 G AVISO USTED HA SIDO DEMANDADO/A EN CORTE. Si usted desea defenderse de las demandas que se presentan mas adelante en las siguientes paginas, debe tomar action dentro de los proximos veinte (20) dias despues de la notification de esta Demanda y Aviso radicando personalmente o por medio de un abogado una comparecencia escrita y radicando en la Corte por escrito sus defensas de, y objecciones a, las demandas presentadas aqui en contra suya. Se le advierte de que si usted falla de tomar action como se describe anteriormente, el caso puede proceder sin usted y un fallo por cualquier suma de dinero reclamada en la demanda o cualquier otra reclamacion o remedio solicitado por el demandante puede ser dictado en contra suya por la Corte sin mas aviso adicional. Usted puede perder dinero o propiedad u otros derechos importantes para usted. USTED DEBE LLEVAR ESTE DOCUMENTO A SU ABOGADO INMEDIATAMENTE. SI LISTED NO TIENE UN ABOGADO, LLAME O VAYA A LA SIGUIENTE OFICINA. ESTA OFICINA PUEDE PROVEERLE INFORMACION A CERCA DE COMO CONSEGUIR UN ABOGADO. SI USTED NO PUEDE PAGAR POR LOS SERVICIOS DE UN ABOGADO, ES POSIBLE QUE ESTA OFICINA LE PUEDA PROVEER INFORMACION SOBRE AGENCIAS QUE OFREZCAN SERVICIOS LEGALES SIN CARGO O BAJO COSTO A PERSONAS QUE CALIFICAN. Cumberland County Bar Association 32 South Bedford Street Carlisle, Pennsylvania Telephone Number 249-3166 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STEVEN AND LISA LONG PLAINTIFFS V. GARY BURG D/B/A HAGUE QUALITY WATER OF SUSQUEHANNA VALLEY, DEFENDANT DOCKET NO. CV-0000041-06 COMPLAINT IN A CIVIL ACTION 1. This Court has original jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Section 761 (a) (2) of the Judicial Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 761(a)(2). 2. Plaintiffs are Steven and Lisa Long, 14 Reynolds Street, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania 17055. 3. Defendant is Gary Burg, d/b/a Hague Quality Water of Susquehanna Valley (hereinafter referred to as "Hague" or "Hague Quality Water"), Box 523, Lititz, Pennsylvania 17543. 4. Defendant, Gary Burg d/b/a Hague Quality Water of Susquehanna Valley, was at all times relevant hereto, engaged in trade and commerce in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by advertising, offering for sale, distributing and selling water treatment systems to consumers in Pennsylvania. 5. After the Plaintiffs received a mailing from Hague Quality Water offering free water testing, they made an appointment with Hague Quality Water for a water test to be conducted at their home. 6. On May 11, 2005, a salesperson for Hague and an agent acting with authority for the Defendant, Mr. Razman Andrei, performed a water test in which he "tested" the Plaintiffs' tap water for various conditions, including hardness and other contaminants. (The results are highlighted on Exhibit A under Water Analysis.) He tested for Hardness, pH, Iron and "Other" but did not say what those levels indicated. Mr. Andrei then made his sales presentation for the Hague water softener and reverse osmosis units. 7. During Mr. Andrei's sales presentation, he told Plaintiffs that their water contained chemicals and substances that have been proven to be hazardous to their health and could cause many different health problems. 8. Mr. Andrei told Plaintiffs that Hague's water systems would alleviate the hardness in their water and remove the harmful chemicals and substances. 9. Mr. Andrei represented, directly or by implication, during the sales presentation that Hague's water treatment systems helps people suffering from various health problems and dry skin. 10. Mr. Andrei represented, directly or by implication, during the sales presentations, that many major food chain restaurants use Hague's water treatment system. 11. Mr. Andrei represented, directly or by implication, during the sales presentations that Pepsi-Cola and Coca-Cola use Hague's water treatment systems to produce their bottled water. 12. Mr. Andrei represented, directly or by implication, during the sales presentations that NASA uses Hague's water treatment systems. -2- 13. As part of his sales presentation, Mr. Andrei told Plaintiffs that they would receive several years' supply of laundry soap, hand soap, bar soap, dishwashing liquid soap, dishwasher soap, multipurpose cleaner and shampoo free of charge. 14. As part of his sales presentation, Mr. Andrei told Plaintiffs that they would be able to pay for the system from the savings it would provide them in soap supplies, utility costs (electric and water) and protection of pipes, kitchen appliances and water heater. 15. Following Mr. Andrei's sales presentation, Plaintiffs agreed to purchase the Hague WaterMax water softener and the reverse osmosis unit recommended by Mr. Andrei. The cost of the system was $3,850, which was paid for by Plaintiffs on May 11, 2005. 16. On May 13, 2005, Defendant Burg came to Plaintiffs' home and installed the reverse osmosis unit while other servicemen installed the water softener unit in the basement. (Exhibit B shows how the reverse osmosis unit is designed and how it is set up underneath the countertop.) 17. In August 2005, approximately 3 months after installation, Plaintiffs discovered a leak under the kitchen sink where the reverse osmosis unit was installed. The bottom of this cabinet was covered with water and warped and had apparently been leaking for a period of time. Plaintiffs immediately reported the leak to Defendant's office. 18. On August 15, 2005, Defendant Burg came out to check the reverse osmosis unit. He told the Plaintiffs he did not know what was wrong. Plaintiffs asked what the Hague company would do about the damaged cabinet, and Defendant Burg told Plaintiffs to report it to their homeowner's insurance company. -3- 19. Since Plaintiffs' insurance deductible was $500 and the cabinet was worth $427, filing such a claim was not an option and Plaintiffs' homeowner's policy would be unlikely to cover Defendant Burg's negligent installation and defective products in any event. 20. Plaintiffs had installed a brand-new kitchen and the cabinets in November 2004 and all the plumbing and cabinets were less than one year old. 21. On August 19, 2005, Plaintiffs found water flooding the kitchen countertop and again found water under the sink. Again, Plaintiffs immediately reported this leak to the Hague office. 22. On August 23, 2005, Defendant Burg came to Plaintiffs' home to look under the sink at the unit and said he could not find where the leak was coming from. 23. On August 24, 2005, water again flooded the Plaintiffs' countertop and was leaking under the sink. Plaintiff, Mrs. Long, called the Hague office at 8:00 a.m. to report the leakage. Defendant Burg returned the call around 10:00 a.m. and told Plaintiff, Mrs. Long, to put one cup of Liquid Plumber down drain and said "That will take care of the problem forever." Despite Defendant Burg's statements to this effect, the leak continued. 24. On the evening of August 25, 2005, Plaintiffs again found water flooding the countertop and the cabinet under the sink was wet. Plaintiff, Mrs. Long, immediately called the Hague office to report this. 25. On August 26, 2005, Defendant Burg returned Plaintiff's call. Plaintiff, Mrs. Long, told Defendant Burg that she put one cup of Liquid Plumber down the drain as he instructed her to do and it worked that evening but now it is leaking water onto countertop and under cabinet again. -4- 26. Defendant Burg offered to run a bypass hose under the sink. He said this hose would bypass the Plaintiffs' drain pipes and connect downstairs into a bigger pipe. Defendant Burg said he would discuss the issue about reimbursing the Plaintiffs for the cost of the damaged cabinet with the main Hague office in Ohio. Defendant Burg made an appointment to personally come to the Plaintiffs' home to run the bypass hose. 27. On August 29, 2005, instead of Defendant Burg going to Plaintiffs' home, another repairman came. The repairman found a clog in a hose of the reverse osmosis unit and claimed that was the problem. For the first time, Plaintiffs were told that the unit has a feature which releases water onto the countertop if there is a clog. Neither Defendant Burg nor the Plaintiffs' salesman had ever explained this feature to them. However, this still did not explain how water was getting under the Plaintiffs' sink cabinet and making their cabinet wet. 28. The repairman then left the Plaintiffs' home without running the bypass hose. About 30 minutes after the repairman left, there was some water leaking onto the base of the cabinet, even though the repairman had just removed the clog. Again, the Plaintiffs immediately called the Hague office to report this. 29. On August 30, 2005, Plaintiff, Mrs. Long, called the Hague office three times and also called the main Hague office in Ohio and spoke with Eric Parish of Dealer Services. Mr. Parish said his office cannot reimburse the Plaintiffs for the cabinet and that the Plaintiffs needed to address their concerns with Defendant Burg. 30. Subsequently, Defendant Burg called Plaintiff, Mrs. Long, and said that without a garbage disposal unit, Plaintiffs would keep getting clogs. -5- 31. However, Defendant Burg had personally installed the Plaintiffs' reverse osmosis unit and had never mentioned that not having a garbage disposal could be a problem. Defendant's salesman had never mentioned this potential problem either despite the obvious lack of a garbage disposal at the sink. 32. After hearing that the Hague products would not work properly without a garbage disposal, Plaintiffs informed Defendant Burg that they no longer wanted the products because they continued to leak onto the countertop and under the sink. Plaintiffs asked for their money back as promised in Hague's written warranty. 33. On August 31, 2005, Plaintiffs faxed a letter to Defendant Burg demanding the removal of Hague's defective and negligently-installed products from their home with full reimbursement of $3,850 and also requested full reimbursement for their kitchen cabinet of $427 (Exhibit C). 34. In response to the August 31, 2005, letter, Mr. Andrei spoke with Plaintiff, Mrs. Long, and said he wanted to come to the Plaintiffs' home to do a follow-up test on water from the reverse osmosis unit. Plaintiff agreed to the testing. 35. On September 2, 2005, Mr. Andrei came to the Plaintiffs' home to 'retest' their water (see Exhibit D for those results). COUNT 1: BREACH OF CONTRACT 36. Paragraphs 1 through 35 of this Complaint are incorporated into this Count by reference. 37. A contract for the sale and installation of the water softener and reverse osmosis unit by Defendant and the purchase by Plaintiffs was entered into on or about May 12, 2005. -6- 38. Defendant Hague Quality Water breached the contract by installing defective equipment and/or failing to install its equipment in a workmanlike manner, resulting in ongoing leaks and damage to Plaintiffs' kitchen cabinetry. 39. As a result of Defendant's breach, Plaintiff has failed to receive the benefit of the bargain of the water softener and reverse osmosis unit as the reverse osmosis unit is unusable without further damage to Plaintiffs' kitchen. Further, Plaintiffs' kitchen cabinetry was damaged in the amount of $427. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in the amount of $4,277 plus interest and costs. COUNT 2: BUYER REPUDIATION OF CONTRACT UNDER SECTION 2711(a) OF THE UNIFORM COMMERCIAL CODE 40. Paragraphs 1 through 39 of this Complaint are incorporated into this Count by reference. 41. Under Section 2711(a) of the Uniform Commercial Code, 13 Pa.C.S. §2711(a), Plaintiffs revoke their acceptance of the contract and demand reimbursement for the price paid, as well as consequential damages. 42. Plaintiffs' revocation of the contract is justifiable in light of Defendant's defective product and unworkmanlike performance of the contract. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in the amount of $4,277 plus interest and costs. -7- COUNT 3: EXPRESS AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE 43. Paragraphs 1 through 42 of this Complaint are incorporated into this Count by reference. 44. During negotiations over the contract, Defendant expressly warranted that the water softener and reverse osmosis unit were of merchantable quality and fit to be used for Plaintiffs' purposes. In particular, Defendant expressly warranted that Defendant's water system would alleviate water hardness, remove harmful chemicals and substances which it asserted were in Plaintiffs' water, and alleviate health problems and dry skin. 45. Additionally, Defendant's products came with the following express warranty: "Hague Quality Water International warrants that upon receipt from the owner of any Hague RO dispensing spigot, filter housing and cap, PCF filter housing and cap, membrane housing and cap found to be defective in materials or workmanship, Hague will repair or replace the defective item, at no charge for that item, for 25 years from date of installation." 46. The Uniform Commercial Code provides for an Implied Warranty of Merchantibility and Fitness For A Particular Purpose. 13 Pa.C.S. §2314-2315. 47. Defendant's product was not merchantable or fit for the particular purpose for which it was purchased and installed at Plaintiffs' residence in that it did not serve the purposes for which it had been purchased and installed and was not of merchantable -8- quality. Moreover, because of continuing leaks, the reverse osmosis unit was simply unusable and its purchase and installation resulted in damages to Plaintiffs' kitchen cabinetry. 48. Defendant is in violation of the terms of its express warranty and the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in the amount of $4,277 plus interest and costs. COUNT 4: FRAUD 49. Paragraphs 1 through 48 of this Complaint are incorporated into this Count by reference. 50. Plaintiffs were reasonably induced to purchase the water softener and reverse osmosis units because of Defendant's fraudulent misrepresentations with respect to the poor quality of Plaintiffs' water supply and the capability and quality of Defendant's products. 51. Defendant knew or should have known that its statements with respect to the quality of Plaintiffs' water and the capability and quality of Defendant's products were without basis. 52. Plaintiffs were harmed by Defendant's fraudulent actions in that Plaintiff purchased Defendant's product and sustained damages to their kitchen cabinetry as a result of the use and installation of Defendant's product without any benefit from same. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment in the amount of $4,277 plus interest and costs. -9- COUNT 5: UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE PRACTICES 53. Paragraphs 1 through 52 of this Complaint are incorporated into this Count by reference. 54. Section 201-2(2) of the Consumer Protection Law, defines "trade" and "commerce" as: The advertising, offering for sale, sale or distribution of any services and any property, tangible or intangible, real, personal or mixed, and any other article, commodity or thing of value wherever situate, and includes any trade and commerce directly or indirectly affecting the people of this Commonwealth. 73 P.S. § 201-2(2). 55. Pursuant to Section 201-2 (4) (ii), (v), (xi), (xiv), (xv), (xvi) and (xxi) of the Consumer Protection Law, the following acts or practices are defined as unfair or deceptive: (ii) causing likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval or certification of goods or services; (v) representing that goods or services have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits or quantities that they do not have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation or connection that he does not have; (xi) making false or misleading statements of fact concerning the reasons for, existence of, or amounts of price reductions; (xiv) failing to comply with the terms of any written guarantee or warranty given to the buyer at, prior to or after a contract for the purchase of goods or services is made; -10- (xv) knowingly misrepresenting that services, replacements or repairs are needed if they are not needed; (xvi) making repairs, improvements or replacements on tangible, real or personal property, of a nature or quality inferior to or below the standard of that agreed to in writing; and (xxi) engaging in any other fraudulent or deceptive conduct which creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding. 73 P.S. § 201-2 (4) (ii), (v), (xi), (xiv), (xv), (xvi) and (xxi). 56. Defendant's representations to the Plaintiffs, expressly or by implication, that the Hague water treatment system helps people suffering from various illnesses and dry skin was without a sound basis in fact and Defendant knew or should have known that such representations lacked a sound basis in fact. 57. Defendant's representations to Plaintiffs, expressly or by implication, that some major food chains use the Hague water treatment systems was without a sound basis in fact and Defendant knew or should have known that such representations lacked a sound basis in fact. 58. Defendant's representations, expressly or by implication, that Pepsi-Cola and Coca-Cola use the Hague water treatment systems to produce their respective bottled water was without a sound basis in fact and Defendant knew or should have known that such representations lacked a sound basis in fact. 59. Defendant's representations, expressly or by implication, that NASA uses the Hague water treatment systems was without a sound basis in fact and Defendant knew or should have known that such representations lacked a sound basis in fact. -11- 60. Defendant's representations that the Hague water softening system will protect pipes and appliances because it will remove all hardness was without a sound basis in fact and Defendant knew or should have known that such representations lacked a sound basis in fact. To the contrary, Plaintiffs have determined that removing all the hardness from the water makes pipes and appliances just as susceptible to corrosion as does too much hardness in the water. 61. Defendant's representations that Plaintiffs would be able to pay for the system from the savings it will provide them in soap and cleaning supplies and other costs was without a sound basis in fact and Defendant knew or should have known that such representations lacked a sound basis in fact. To the contrary, Plaintiffs have seen no savings in their electricity and water bills, or other costs, as a result of the water softening system. 62. Defendant knew or should have known that its representations during the second water "testing" visit on September 2, 2005, that Defendant checked for microbials and trace minerals, were untrue. 63. Defendant knew or should have known that, when Plaintiff inquired as to the breakdown of price between the water softening and reverse osmosis units, the information provided by Defendant on September 2, 2005 was incorrect. 64. Despite the express warranty provided for the reverse osmosis unit, Defendant refused to remove the reverse osmosis unit and replace it with another model that worked properly. 65. Defendant's representations, expressly or by implication, that the Plaintiffs should buy the water softening unit to remove hardness and other chemicals from their -12- water when, in fact, the hardness reading on Plaintiffs' water was moderate and tests of other chemicals did not indicate a need for water softening, was without a sound basis in fact and Defendant knew or should have known that such representations lacked a sound basis in fact 66. Defendant, acting individually and through his agents, violated Section 201-3 of the Consumer Protection Law as defined by Sections 201-2 (4) (ii), (v), (xi), (xiv), (xv), (xvi) and (xxi) in the following respects: a. Failing to represent water results correctly in violation of Sections 201- 2(4) iii), (v), (xv) and (xxi); b. Incorrectly stating the cost of the water softening unit and the reverse osmosis unit after the $500 discount the Plaintiffs received as a result of purchasing both units together, in violation of Sections 201-2 (4) (ii), (xi) and (xxi); C. Leading Plaintiffs to believe that they needed water softening equipment when, in fact, they did not in violation of Sections 201-2 (4) (ii), (xiv) (xv), and (xxi); d. Failing to reimburse Plaintiffs for damage caused by Defendant's defective product when Defendant knew or should have known that Defendant's product was responsible for such damage in violation of Section 201-2 (4) (xxi). -13- WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court: A. Order Defendant to pay damages of $4,277 plus interest and costs; B. Order the Defendant to pay treble damages, plus attorney's fees and costs of litigation; and C. Provide any other relief the Court deems necessary and appropriate to effectuate the purpose of the Consumer Protection Law. Edmund J. Bergel-Y Attorney I.D. #53407 Attorney for Plaintiff 2104 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Phone: 717-920-8900 Fax: 717-920-8901 E-Mail: tbergerAbergerlawfirm.net -14- VERIFICATION I, Lisa K. Long, affirm that I am the Plaintiff in this action and that the statements of fact made in the foregoing Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements herein are made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann. § 4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities. Date: May 3, 2006 C?i4 K. Long CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day filed the foregoing documents, Complaint in a Civil Action, upon the following persons and in the manner indicated. VIA CERTIFIED FIRST CLASS MAIL Gary Burg Hague Quality Water of Susquehanna Valley P.O. Box 523 Lititz, PA 17543 Date: May 10, 2006 C"Z ?' Ea ? t IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STEVEN AND LISA LONG, PLAINTIFFS Dln - /013 V. DOCKET NO. CV=9966VO.t3=06. GARY BURG DB/A HAGUE , QUALITY WATER OF , SUSQUEHANNA VALLEY, DEFENDANT DEFENDANT'S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT IN A CIVIL ACTION 1. Admitted. 2. Admitted. 3. Admitted. 4. Admitted. 5. Admitted. 6. Admitted in part and Denied in part. It is admitted that a sales representative for Hague acting as an agent with authority from the Defendant performed water tests on the Plaintiffs tap water. It is admitted that Mr. Andrei made a sales presentation for the Hague water softener and osmosis units. It is specifically denied that the agent is Razman Andrei. On the contrary, the agent is a Rauzvan Andrei. It is denied that the agent failed to indicate the results of the tests performed on the Plaintiff s water. 7. Denied. Defendant is without the knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and the same is therefore denied. 8. Denied. Defendant is without the knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averment and the same is therefore denied. 9. Denied. Defendant is without the knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averment and the same is therefore denied. a 10. Denied. Defendant is without the knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averment and the same is therefore denied. 11. Denied. Defendant is without the knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and the same is therefore denied. 12. Denied. Defendant is without the knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and the same is therefore denied. 13. Denied. Defendant is without the knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and the same is therefore denied. 14. Denied. Defendant is without the knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and the same is therefore denied. 15. Admitted. 16. Admitted. 17. Denied. Defendant is without the knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and the same is therefore denied. 18. Admitted. 19. Denied. Defendant is without the knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and the same is therefore denied. 20. Denied. Defendant is without the knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and the same is therefore denied. 21. Denied. Defendant is without the knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and the same is therefore denied. 22. Admitted. 23. Admitted in part and Denied in part. It is admitted that the Plaintiff called the Hague office at 8:00 a.m. and reported a leakage. It is specifically denied that the Defendant advised the Plaintiff that pouring one cup of liquid Plumber down the drain would take care of the problem forever. Strict proof of this averment is demanded at time of trial. 24. Denied. Defendant is without the knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and the same is therefore denied. 25. Admitted. 26. Admitted in part and Denied in part. The averments made in Paragraph 26 are admitted except for the averment that the Defendant advised the Plaintiff that he would personally come over to the Plaintiff's home. To the contrary, the Defendant advised that he would have a repairperson out to the Plaintiff's home to address the problem. 27. Denied. Defendant is without the knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averment and the same is therefore denied. 28. Denied. Defendant is without the knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averment and the same is therefore denied. 29. Denied. Defendant is without the knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averment and the same is therefore denied. 30. Denied. It is specifically denied that the Defendant Burg called Mrs. Long and advised her that unless she had a garbage disposal unit installed she would continue to get clogs. 31. Admitted in part and Denied in part. It is admitted that the Defendant Burg personally installed the Plaintiff's reverse osmosis unit and never mentioned to the Plaintiff that not having a garbage disposal could be a problem. The averments regarding the Defendant's sales representative's statements are specifically denied as the Defendant's is without knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of this averments and therefore the same portion of the averment is denied. 32. Admitted in part and Denied in part. It is admitted that the Plaintiffs informed Defendant Burg that they no longer wanted the products. It is admitted that the Plaintiffs asked for their money back as promised in Hague's written warranty. It is denied that the Defendant advised the Plaintiffs that the Hague products would not work properly without a garbage disposal. 33. Admitted. 34. Denied. Defendant is without the knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of the averment and the same is therefore denied. 35. Admitted. 36. Denied. The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 35 are incorporated herein as though set forth at length herein. 37. Admitted. 38. Denied. It is specifically denied that the water softener is unusable without further damage to Plaintiff's kitchen. It is specifically denied that the Plaintiffs cabinetry was damaged in the amount of $427.00. It is specifically denied that the Defendant breached and that the Plaintiffs have failed to receive the benefit of the bargain. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Gary Burg d/b/a as Hague Quality Water of Susquehanna Valley, requests that the Plaintiffs Complaint in a civil action be dismissed. 40. The averments set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 39 are incorporated herein as through set forth at length herein. 41. Denied. The averments set forth in Paragraph 41 are conclusions of law to which no answer is required under the Rules of Procedure. 42. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 42 are conclusions of law to which no response is required under Rules of Procedure. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Gary Burg d/b/a Hague Quality Water of Susquehanna Valley requests that the Complaint in a Civil Action be dismissed. 43. Denied. The averments set forth in Paragraph 1 through 42 are incorporated herein as though set forth at length herein. 44. Denied. Defendant is without the knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and the same is therefore denied. 45. Admitted. 46. Admitted. 47. Denied. The averments set forth in Paragraph 47 are conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Rules of Procedure. 48. Denied. The averments set forth in Paragraph 48 are conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Rules of Procedure. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Gary Burg d/b/a Hague Quality Water of Susquehanna Valley requests that the Complaint in a Civil Action be dismissed. 49. Denied. The averments set forth in Paragraph 1 through 48 are incorporated herein as though more fully set forth at length herein. 50. Denied. The averments set forth in Paragraph 50 are conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Rules of Procedure. 51. Denied. The averments set forth in Paragraph 51 are conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Rules of Procedure. 52. Denied. The averments set forth in Paragraph 52 are conclusions of law to which no response is required under the Rules of Procedure. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Gary Burg d/b/a Hague Quality Water of Susquehanna Valley requests that the Complaint in a Civil Action be dismissed. 53. Denied. The averments set forth in Paragraph 1 through 53 are incorporated herein as though more fully set forth at length herein. 54. Admitted. 55. Admitted. 56. Denied. Defendant is without the knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and the same is therefore denied. 57. Denied. Defendant is without the knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and the same is therefore denied. 58. Denied. Defendant is without the knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and the same is therefore denied. 59. Denied. Defendant is without the knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and the same is therefore denied. 60. Denied. Defendant is without the knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and the same is therefore denied. 61. Denied. Defendant is without the knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and the same is therefore denied. 62. Denied. The averments set forth in paragraph 62 are conclusions of law to which no answer is required under the Rules of Procedure. 63. Denied. Defendant is without the knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and the same is therefore denied. 64. Denied. Defendant is without the knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and the same is therefore denied. 65 Denied. Defendant is without the knowledge to form a belief as to the truth of this averment and the same is therefore denied. 66. The averments set forth in Paragraph 66 are conclusions of law to which no answer is required under the Rules of Procedure. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Gary Burg d/b/a Hague Quality Water of Susquehanna Valley, requests that the Plaintiffs Complaint in a Civil Action be dismissed. Respectfully submitted: orsett, Esquire Attorney I.D. # 40001 Attorney for Defendant 9 North 9`h Street Reading, PA 19601 Phone: 610-372-5333 Fax: 610-376-5858 w VERIFICATION I, Gary Burg, d/b/a Hague Quality Water of Susquehanna Valley, affirm that I am the Defendant in this action and that the statements of fact made in the foregoing Answer to Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. The undersigned understands that the statements herein are made subject t the penalties of 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. Ann Section 4904 relating to unworn falsification to authorities. Dated: June 8, 2006 'z I Gary urg M IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STEVEN AND LISA LONG PLAINTIFFS V. . GARY BURG D/B/A HAGUE QUALITY WATER OF SUSQUEHANNA VALLEY, DEFENDANT DOCKET NO. PETITION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT: Edmund J. Berger , counsel for the Plaintiff in the above action, respectfully represents that: 1. The above-captioned action is at issue. 2. The claim of Plaintiff in the action is $12,831 plus attorney fees and costs, interest, and court fees and costs. The following attorneys are interested in the case(s) as counsel or are otherwise disqualified to sit as arbitrators: None of which Plaintiff is currently aware. 46 WHEREFORE, your petitioner prays your Honorable Court to appoint three (3) arbitrators to whom the case shall be submitted. Edmund J. Bergdr Attorney I.D. #53407 Attorney for Plaintiff 2104 Market Street Camp Hill, PA 17011 Phone: 717-920-8900 Fax: 717-920-8901 E-Mail: tberger berperlawfirm.net --2-- CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have this day filed the foregoing documents, Petition for Appointment of Arbitrators, upon the following persons and in the manner indicated. VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Gary L. Dorsett, Esq. 9 North Ninth Street Reading, PA 19601 Date: June 21, 2006 1 J cr, C') c?? "t l - r, Q v ii1 v7 ? 1-? f a Pf CEIVED JUN 27 2fI06 Y IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA STEVEN AND LISA LONG PLAINTIFFS ? 66- 11113 V. DOCKET NO. GV4NNKKWtjW GARY BURG D/B/A HAGUE QUALITY WATER OF SUSQUEHANNA VALLEY, DEFENDANT ORDER OF COURT AND NOW, lQ ac 2006, in consideration of the foregoing petition, -/f!aLn Azi- [ki<.Esq., and L Esq. and 0 Esq., are appointed arbitrators in the above captioned action as prayed for. BY T(TTt E DGAR B. BAYLEY rIM IL- r. 1 J'b C F _i O(o-hol3 Civil 5` kQe,., a N4- L_ 1.5', (-ah In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland ?ov-'_ 6 Plaintiff ,,vv + County, Pennsylvania No. C I/ - 00&-o V_/ - p( 19??`? b iglu" ?u`d4t Q? ('. K`' Defendant Civil Action - Law. it ? Ce y d F- S?as? U G"t.Gt h „?. Va (l Oath We do solemnly swear (or affirm) that we will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that we will discharge the duties of our office with fidelity. Signature 'P CL_a rAI w 6 fi<wuJ Name (Chairman) , 6A, NSe -j D. V C- c Law Firm Wt • f. o 4, oc, Address 4 /OV Signature Waq., 1h. Per.??,f" Name rezu-Q? Pc. Law Firm 1205 f4W,' j)r_tw .Address. ?.uD Signature U Name C Gds -,ass. Law Firm 3gov L Y- (7dy? City, Zip city, zip Ad*css (?? /64 /l /fall City, Zip Award We, the undersigned arbitrators, having been duly appointed and sworn for affirmed), make the following award: (Note: If damages for delay are awarded, they shall be separately stated.) k) 60 V6 If ,A, ?e'Fe?dc-?,.?i ?-h e + c ?-?, au? 1? me 'r i:dt f? r•?co,?.4.- c( ?q Cka („•., s L) od •? t tit LOhSvr»c,- 1°rQfcc??c?.i taw w< VC '` D Ir +t-- )a- rle t . Arbitrator, dissents. (Insert name if applicable.) Date of Hearin Ap 4- -7? G Date of Award: Y`'lck_7, t ;" Notice of Entry of Award Now, they' day of May , 20Q'_, at 3: P .M., the above award was entered upon the docket and notice thereof given by mail to the parties or their attorneys. Arbitrators' compensation to be paid upon appeal: $ 35d G0 By: Prothonotary Deputy t? v d t- acw cV -e c \Ls (- «"k, Mgo ?. E-cl- gjmof? Doss Clam 6,4q,ol DO 1c 4 ob -1(013 civil S? ewe a h d. L 1 s (--Lon In The Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland Plaintiff County, Pennsylvania No. Q?U i Y r? Y Defendant Civil Action - Law. ?uSG? U cLiu •, ??- vu It -6- Oath We do solemnly swear (or affirm) that we will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that we will discharge the duties of our office with fidelity. Signature f1 CIa lx W 6 f<CIJ0 Name (Chairman) , 6,evsc, V.V rm Sf`e .f r Law Firm bo t %&,%, f - o ?o? rod Address U-,?,-L Y- ()a5ly city, Zip # 11431 414VI/fo Signature waq., 61. P"V- Name rexii-4Asz&? Pc. Law Firm 1205' kfawl Vrtw .Address. ,?tl?'? City, lap #1(00151 Award Si ture Name / C_Cr?, i (mss/`sss Law Firm 3gov AJ&.Lss City, Zip # Irmo We, the undersigned arbitrators, having been duly appointed and sworn (or affirmed), make the following award: (Note: If damages for delay are awarded, they shall be separately stated.) 6U e f 1"K Ira vc? o ? ? ?. ? ?PIU %,A, T- a ? ? u 44-411 L4 t " ti G tc: Oa s U v,G? ? r (~ G,t Co r15v?r,c.- rrCI eJ,-,-, LI w w ? (h co f f?l . Arbitrator, dissents. (Insert name if applicable.) Y'4u Y 7? zoo 7 Date of Hearing: Avwa? Date of Award: Nc,? 2, 2oo T -r ..... . . r {'? %• 1i 40 w Notice of Entry of Award Now, they' day of a. , 20_a7, at 3 13 _, P .M., the above award was entered upon the docket and notice thereof given by mail to the parties or their attorneys. Arbitrators' compensation to be paid upon appeal: $ 35Q to 414 1 By: Prothonotary Deputy Law ,yL ?? rl ??, pa?.se ? (i,/ G, f c i s r -.__ ?414W O VAIO