HomeMy WebLinkAbout94-07302
..s
:J
~
~
~
'"
r5
~
rl
~
ill!
,I
,n i, d
1
'.
,"
,
,.
,
.
I'
,
,,'
"
I
r
I
"
,
I,!I
I":
(II :','
I, ",
,.
;1 I
,,'I
'Ill,
,~ ; ,-,,',,
,p!"
I'"
,- ~,
, '
L
,I,",
','1
, 1
"
, ,
,.",'
~I !) f
',.-,
,(
"
ii,
j'
l:i'I'1
I," 'i
',1'1
",!','Ii"
"
,'II
11
"
"
,:;;,'IIL
, !
-It!
"
,
,
"
,
,(
1,,1
"
, '
,
'"II,
"
"
"
I
I
I"~
""
"
"
"-
"t
I
"J',),'
','
l"
,
'-I
,
,
,
. "
,
,
I,!j,'
11'1,
"
i/-"
',1'-, {
I::'
,
'I
'l''''!"
" ,
. ,
I',
','
'Ii'
"
,
.!' I
q,', - I
dJ'1 I
1,>1,"
',-I
".
,
1
., ,
"
.'
.,
"
"q
",
"
0"
"
,-t'
"
-j\
.,
, ,
,"
'!'I,I
"
'.,)
"
.'
"
"
"
,
"
"
't'
:".-,;\
; ,
"
0',1
,;
,
.\' '\,i
,'I'I
; ~ d,
1";'-
-n
"
"
"
f..'
'_'I
"
II,
, I'
"
",1'
,
" fl,
, ,
i/(I'!';-",
.
,
('
,
-I;,
',1'
"
J Ij
"
,
i
Iii
'I
'\".1 I"
i ~ ! J 1_;, - I'
, "
t;'
.I!';
,'III);,!
\ ,'I,
"
II,!
i'!r
,',
i
-f.
',Il
.,
\
!"
/_1'1
',I
:"
"
"
,
- \~
"
,
\ -1-1
,t!rJ
.,
"
j-I
\1"
"
,',I,
I': ,)
;"
'I!
!-,,,)
I
"
'II
:1
',I,
",
,
'I,'
,',
,
'1-;,
,
.'1
"
",
.,
,
, ,
, ,
,,'
,
n'''; )~:n
i,:,'l!
"
.,
.,
,
"
.,
"
'I jl,I"1
"
,,'
! ,
"I
,
.,
,
,
}II
'iI,
:1,
, .
-1-'
I"
,\
1,1_"
')1,
,
.,':
.
r!
I,';
'I
i'
JIll
E,"
!
,
0'
'i
""
"
!'
"
",
'.
..
..
'to
Iii,;
'1;\ ,"'I'/,;r
;'{/i,:'j-'
,..
,
,
,I
,,"
H
"
I'll
fl'
'j",
"
;,'
,I"~
I'-'i"" f I,
,tol!:'J,'
'.(,r'
,iij
\',
, '
,
.,
" -,-
",',;{:"
"
,
"
,
,
,'t': I'
,
,
,,'
",
"
'I',
'Ii
" I'
'11";1 "
"
,
,
,I,
",I
"
"~'I
~'I(
",r
""j;':,
,I'"
" !
",I
,
-Ii
,1',
,.'1, 'j'
"
"
'r
,i
,\,
"
, ,
,
ti' ,
!j
:1 '
.'
'q
'il
'), ">I"j
";,,
!.,
I
,
;1;'"
Ii., I
q
,il-;,
:1
d
,
'I"
"
I j"
",'.,
, "
d 'I
,';! ,
~ i 't: j
"'f! "
. ,
,
:J
"
,
,
,,'lll
I"
,
)",
..
",i
,,'
",
-jl
'I J,
,;.'"
"
,
'I-!
I"i'
,
,
,"
11\
I
",'
,.
,
. ,
\
','
,
1,'1
,
,I'
,
"
':1
,',-1
:/
\1;
"
, ,
'j';, II'
,
:.1 j
"
;,
,
, .
ji".1 I
;1'.'1
. 'd
"
";,:\>;11'
, 1',1
"
,
'." ,J_I
, '1-
1"'['
'i
"
"
-, d
(,
\'
I' '"
"Ii
/1;'
,
"
,I.,'
I
.,
"
..
,';
"
"
,
,;'
..
1'1,
.,
"
"
1
I, ::1
'II,';
"I);,
'i,
',1
"
:i
"
, '
".'
,
,
,
"
~,
e
ro
('l')
, ~5
'UJ t~~ (\i :.~ .1
'U';iIf""'"
'I:;:'r)'l.~ fi ,
i.,_~_(~-I,~_
;_J I'~. ..I'. .,!
'~~I r-'~ ~'2
r. _.;"J-.
;'.,)'Jffi
,-lO M
,'; :J:l
....)!
I!',','-I'
I,
'-'I
,
'I
, ,
'.i
"
',' , '..
.,
.' , \F
, , ,
" ,
,I
,
, ,
"
"
~
~
!i
I" tt
"
, 1'1
" iI
i ~
"
.,
"
,
''',,1'
,..
"
.
II"
:'!'
,
"
.
,
\
,
"
,
,
i !'
"
"
,
q
it
"
,
Ji
"
,'Ii
.,
,
,
"
.,
,
"
~
SAn\' ... WINUER
!ltf(}'n~l' at l.aw
71)1 E. KlIlj SIH'c:t
ShipJ'k;'lI\hurtl. I)" 172~1
i J
"
OJ
"
;.
,
"
,
,
"
"
;',
, ,
.!
"
"
I',
i"
1-,
.
,
,
',Ii
H
,/
"
"
"
,
,
,.
,
I'
ij
"J;
':'
."
';1"
I',
l;'
..
,
"
! ,
""
,
,
,
I
"
'.
,-I '.
,,'
,
I"
"
"
,,1 i'
"
..
.~ ,I
"
DORIS JEAN DYE
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
CUMBERLAND COUNTY,PENNSYL VANIA
! ~
Plaintiff,
-VII-
CIVIL ACTION . LAW
: NUMBER: 94-7302-CIVIL TERM
JADE JANESKO
Defendant,
I'
COMPLAINT
II
'I
i. COMES NOW, Plaintiff, Doris Jean Dye, by and through her attorney, Sally J, Winder,
,
"
; Esquire, and does represent as follows:
"
1.
Plaintiff, is Doris Jean Dye, a sui juris adult individual residing at 12 Kings Gap
Road, Carlisle, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17013.
2. Defendant, is Jade Janesko, an adult individual tnding and doing business as
Shiloh's Bay Run, having a residence and principal place of business at 3966 Enola Road,
Newville, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania 17241,
3, Plaintiff purchased a Tennessee Walking Horse mare "Saphie" [sic], for a price of
$1,200.00 on July 8, 1994, from Defendant Jay Janesko trading and doing business as Shiloh's
Bay Run Acres.
4. Said Tennessee Walking Horse mare was advertised by Defendant as being for sale
with a ninety (90) days buy back guarantee,
S. Plaintiff went to the stables of Defendant to look at the Tennessee Walking Horse
mare on July 4, 1994, after learning about it
in the Patriot. At the time Plaintiff looked at
tho horse and rode the horse on July 4, 1994. Defendant represented that the horse was gentle,
would be an eKcollenttrail horse for trail rides and for riding along the public highways of tho
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
6. Defendant guaranteed that ifthc Tennessee Walking Horse was not a gentle,
I, r~lIable, riding horse, she would tske the horse back and refund Plaintiffs money to her,
7. Plaintill'purchased the Tennessee Walking Horse on July 8, 1994, and received the
, sales slip, marked Exhibit" A" and incorporated herdn by reference thereto upon handing the
check for $1,200,00 to Defendant.
8. At the time of the purchase, Defendant did not mention any conditions upon the 90
day buy back guarantee and did not make Plaintiff aware of the conditions as she wrote them on
the bottom of the sales slip marked Exhibit "A" attached hereto,
9, The Tennessee Walking Horse mare was taken to the Plaintiffs property on July 8,
1994, where she has remained to date,
10, The Plaintill: within several days of the purchase of the said horse, had wormed
the horse and did not ride the horse for a period time,
II. The Plaintiff has never been able to ride the horse as a trail horse because the horse
is not road safe and is too shy and skittish to be a good trail horse,
12, The Plaintiff contacted Defendant during the week of July 13th, 1994, to request
that Defendant take the horse back and return, to her the purchase price of$I,200.00,
13, Defendant refused to contact Plaintitl" and would never agree to take the horse
back despite Plaintiffs repeated attempts to exercise the 90 buy back guarantee,
14, Defendant has never requested that the horse be made available for inspection by
her veterinarian and has never come to the Plaintill's property to observe the condition or health
of the horse,
15. Contrary to the specific advertisement and representations of the Defendant, the
horse is aggressive and not gentle as represented, Further, the horse spooks at shadows and
movement which is contrary to the representation that she would be a good trail horse,
16, The horse is not safe on the road and is very dangerous to ride on the road
contrary to the specific representation of Defendant.
1,7. The Defendant induced Plaintiff to purchase the Tennessee Walking Horse mare
,
I upon misrepresentation of her demeanor and capacity as a gentle. road safe trail horse who would
be good for Plaintiff to ride,
18, Contrary to the specific requests of the Plaintiff for Defendant to corne get the
horse as of the last week of July, 1994, Defendant has refused to honor the buy back guarantee
and has attempted to repudiate the buy back guarantee since the last week of July, 1994.
19. The normal practice upon purchase of new horse is to let the horse sellle in for
several days not to exceed 3 or 4 days prior to riding the horse.
20. Defendant is attempting to impose a 30 day waiting period prior to the 90 day buy
back guarantee going into effect, therefore repudiating the buy back guarantee 8ll evidented by
her leller of August II, 1994, to Plaintiff, a copy of which is marked Exhibit "B", and
incorporated herein by reference thereto.
21. The Plaintiff has provided all board and proper care for the horse including
veterinarian attention, eating and shelter since the refusal of Defendant to come pick up the horse
the last week of July, 1994.
22. As a result of Defendant's failure to take the Tennessee Walking Horse mare baCk
to her property and honor the buy back guarantee, Plaintiff has provided board for the horse
contrary to her desires and specific intention. The reasonable wr market value of such board
provided after her notice and request to Defendant to honor the 90 day buy back guarantee is
$900,00,
23, The actions of Defendant in refusing, upon request of Plaintiff, to take back this
horse and return Plaintitl's $1,200,00 are willful and constitute a material breach of the agreement
entered into between Plaintifl' and Defendant.
i'
:1
"
WHEREFORE, PlalnlilT prayslhll Honorable Court 10 enter a judsment In Iivor of
PlalntilT and lISailllt Defendant for the amount ofS2,l 00.00 plus COlts and Inte~lt.
'i
J!
Ii
"
II
I'
I
I
(
Respectfully submitted,
~l{O~~
Attorney for PlalntllT
"
I
I
II
I
I
I'
II
,I
!I
II,
II
"
,
,
, "
"
, ,
,
."
"
'!I
, i
, "
I :1'
!,
,"
I " "
" ,
" "
,
, ,
II
"~, ,"
'I "
II '. , 1'; "i
i""
II , ,
jI " ,',
, 'I
I" ,
'I ,
Ii , , .. ,
II
q
I
II
i'(, J
1,
, '
I) IL,
! 'j
,"
, 'I"
"
, '
,II
"
'I
, "
,,'
. il
,
,
"
,
"
I'"..
au?, II. I Cf9t/-
'1Y\ Q. . '" 'in ~ s. ~ ~.<<..ou O~,
. ....,~ __Q.d:L.A. ~ Qa'n ~~ t.l..A.. ~~ ~
~ ~c..t2.. c;l.....n.A.O/d:.u.. cnu G... UA.Ilo 44' L uJ,.., ~CJ ~
P...u...~ ~ 8, / q ql. a s ~:l::Ld.... ~ -' "1:L... ~
to.o....d.L (O.l...l..l1.A..OJJ...:t-LL-.-=*::.1.L .JliJl.IU.. mu......U J~ ~ ().m...pJ.
~ to ~ ~ (.. .....:m"t:.o ":'..t.Ll ()\.u..u ~4s --!tn. ~
-to ,l~ 4u5llou.d...., nt AO tu.. ~ ~ k W 0..... 9~
m 'Q J"td::(U ~ta.b.... i-fL.u> ~ Lua.a ~ ~ ..::.*:.LL.:IVru..,
~ ~u ~ ~ -t~ l/....)(j...O ~ ClJ....d.~.d-.
to ~f't..L <U- t1...t.. -b:mu... s..t .-fl4A.dJl a.Q ,Qv').-d. -1:::L.ulln.L '-la.,o
~ ...uu OJ. ~ ~-.Uu..LA. 'b.dauiuL.
~'5 ~ 0Ca.:tc- ad- :tL.4 ~~ u.~
cy~. OU) {0L. ~~ L J\~ {O'L '1'"'4 . '<l ..Ld.a..u-LCR.,
~~I OL ~.lWU , Cl.tt...cl Lut/U.. ~l .~, ~ -Rl-'--
~ +0 J:i.Uu Qah, 'i~ou.. ~ ~ ~
G~ ~ffi).IOQ. d-Void.. '1-LJu~
.Lu.rt...,Clu~.AA.O ~ ~ (')J')() d. ~
~ etl.A.. ~ ' (\..6/1 &.MLuY\~) '~ lJ tJLL e.rn&,Q &..0 -to 4turr
OW\.. ~ /lU,M, " ~ 5u d. ~:tZl rmo....d.-A.. W
~..L~...uX..u.JlL .will ~ ~ ~d...
~,~ct~}OJui.. w~...LL~
to, OW\. ~ {O'\. a....c:tUnu .
~
d.c.uLL ~
5--L:tck.'.s f6~ ~ <lc--uv
., I,
13
COMMOHWIAL1'H 0' I'INHIYLVAHIA
-.....,..'C-OU.'..OiCOMMON.PLiA'
NOTlQ O' ."PPIAL
fROM
OF (.'1,MII':RrJlm ('O/l'11'Y
9'11 f JUDlCIIL DI".'C'
DISTRICT JUSTICE JUDGMINT
COMMON PUll N. 1 <I ~ '7 J (J.2. CWJ r~
NOTICE 0' APPEAL
Nolie. I. gi_ thot the appellant he" filed In the abovw Ca..t of Comman Plea. an appeol from the judgmen' ....do,.d by ,he Oi.'rlct lv.tIc. on the
dot. and in the COM ....,tio".d ~
....... OI.-wn "--~l5lIrmnll1mllID.:-
Jade Janeslro ,~~_.._u,_J___~,~9-~}___, I. COOl
AOQIID.S 01 ""'UAN' UI' :J'''''~
3966 Filola Road Nl!wvllle P" 17241
OA.Tl 0# A.IXWlN' H CAlli ofjJ'tiij"iiffJ----------.-------- ....----.. --.-..... .---.--'-.-~~--..-{~iCl~~Hl'ir~)'-----~-
12/05/94 IDorifl JelIn Dye " .Tadc .Jan~J7-
~ ~~ ::- 0000290-" =--~;:-7 ~,TH"-___
Thi. bloc~ wil be Ugwd ONLY when ~~ 1........!Wli Po." R .JP, No II appe t was CLAIMANT (see 'Po, R,CP,JP, No.
10081\. I/o _ . .
Thi, Notic. of Appeal. when ,."liVld by the Oi.'ric' lv.~(.. will ~,. a. a 1001 6) I lJ(;tlon belOl'e --.- _Ice, he MUST
SUPERSEDEAS to the judgment fat po.....1an In thi. co... FILE A COMPLAINT within twenty (2iJ1days alter
X ~(J 'I
__.,____ I ng Is NOTICE 01 APPEAL.
--..- ---- .S/OiuiiUfv--oi lfijih(JiiiitiiiYfY- ocixJ;Y
PRAECIPE TO IN'UR RULE'rcf,lfE-CoMpLAINT AND RULE TO FILE
(ThIs section 01 loon to be used ~ fJ{1WJ1~DEFENDANT (sea Pll RCPJP No. 1001(7) in action barOtO Disliicl Justice,
IF NOT USED, de/aCh rrom ccpy 01 notice 01 appoal to be S(Jf\!ed ufJOtl ,1pflOlloo),
PRAECIPE, To ProthonotOty
En'" NI. upon ,__, Dc1ri~ ;Tean !1\fr'-_.__,__ ,______ . oppeIl..(.). to fllo 0 complaint In !hI. oppoaI
~n('ot6{f)OJIU0(.sj ,--'-- - .-- ... ...- - ...., _
<' I 'I Jl (. ,;," ~- /7
(CammonPloa.No. ,. - ,0)... '-<'''~,_~:'':-:)withlnt ty(~O)~'" ~?' r f iucVnent of nonprot.
,,' . " , WC) ,/--p/
...---
01 appe"", 01 his 8'({)m6y 01 agent
RULI. To
Doris ,Jean _ Dye
NI!tno 01 _51
. appellee(.).
(1) You are no~fied that a NIt I. hotwby onNrecl upon you to filo a complaint In ,hi. appool within twwnty (20) day. aflot the doN of
_vic. of this NIe upon you by p....onal .orvle. '" by c,,~fied or regi.tered maiL
(2) N you do not file a complaint within this ~"", a JUOGMfNT OF NON PROS WILL BE ENTERED AGAINST YOU.
(3) Tho dote of ",vie. of thi. rule N ."v\co was by mail i. the dote of mailing. ..' ,
Date: l(..""Jv_ )(~ 19...2.1 ().')"-
'C."II , ( e l '-'-' I...f fJ t.;
SV-' 01 "--r <Y 0Ipufy
NY<: :)I;l.3f
COUFlT FII r
a
. '
-'II'-.l,'
','1".1
~
,'..
" "
" )1
"
PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RULE TO.FILE COMPLAINT
(TM proor ol..rvlo, MUST BE FILED WITliIN TEN (10) DA YS AFTER filing rho notlco ol.pp.ol, Ch.ck OppIlQ.IJI. box"1
COMMONWEALTH Of PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY 0' L"UMBERTJIND
1.1
AFFIDAVIT: I hereby swoar or alll,m that loerved
U . copy 01 tho Notice ~I, Common Pleas NO,.1!': 7.:sC4~ ,upon Ihe Dlstrlcl Justlce'dUlg'neled therein on
(dare ol.o,vlce) J;)! r ao , 19.2L, 0 by Bl:so~aIJervlcL_ iI by (certified) Ireglslered) m8l1, eender'l
receipt ettached hereto, and upon tho appellee, (nome) rl e&? LIY" ,on
~r_1'a> ,19.2!..J:J by perlonal sarvlcelO!l by (coltllled) (reglllered) m41l, .ende"s recolpl attached he,elo,
D and lurthe, that I se,vod the Ruleto File a Complaint accompenylng theabove Notice 0' Appeal upon the appellee(l) lowhom
the Rule wes addressed on ~r ,JO , 19-2.4- 0 by perlonal service ~ by (certllle ) Veglslered)
mall, sander's receipt atteched hereto,
SWORN (AFFIRMED) ANO SUB~CRIBED BEFORE ME
THIS ~)Y' DAY OF ~("~< 19~
_~~"'c~.~0/5<J~--
Slgn./urI 01 officI" ".10" whom _md.,,,t w.. m,d.
Tm. 01 offlcI,1
NOT MW. &fAL
My oommlu'on ,"plr.. on _ PJIIl1W I'IIlllt
CARUSIf IlOIlO, tuMllElllAIIO COUNTY
MY QlMMISSIIlN txPlAlS .lAIlUMT I, .'"
,'. .
'-,1
,-,
.-,.....,
'i
, ,j\'l "" ' h"~'
''',.),
,
c.Jl
to,
f, ,1 I~.
'"
"r'
ill'ill!:!';\ ;1"',;,I'1'1 &0 I. 11,'
",n...L.:~..,: "'q """:)1",',.- '. 'I :'14"
!r:~
'1,1,0 ;\
, L.
.ii!' 'Iq;
'1:"','", ,,\,.,'
,'~ f'
,"
I', l, j ] -'P -''.1 '"
)" "
',,"j',I'.
.-.,j: .."
'-'1
..",(1
"
\ 'it" 1
t ~',' '"" 'I'"j'
P..26& .
~
i!l1ll':I:I\
SitU""
Strfilt,I!"lf".
132 1s7b
Receipt for
Certified Meil
No Insuranco eO'l8,oga ProvIded
Do not uso lor Interneuonal Mall
l!3ee Re\lQrs131
Po~l,t'JII
PO 5t"I,' .""t /11" "~,I,!
Cfl!hll~'III"!
~1.l1ll'1,11 D.....f"l I "I'
11"'lt,(h"!(J,'I,,..,..rl!"
.... ~'lr\JI!\ 11"'_"'I110)'U\I"'11
~ hlWhll'" "'llal"tJ..I'...."."It
~
fIll h,!I1 II.!! ''''~! ,; lI, .~ ,n. I III '.',1. "
Datil. ,11'Ll /lL1"""''','' ~ /I'hU,'"
5
....
8
III
E
o
...
~
l()r/ll I','.~!;,',l"
1101....'
P<lll"'ill~ 'J! 11,)1.'
DEe 3 0 199~
$
.29
1.00
1.00
$
2.29
,
,
"
P 2116 132 1s77
'-J,
Receipt for
Certified Mail
No Inlur.nce Cov018ge Provided
00 not UIIO for Inlernauonal Mill
15ee Revellol
't)i'strict Justice Susan K.
~
-
l\l11l'~'I:I\
1""1"11" $ .29
l;"'lohl!lll"l' 1.00
~1)"'-'/Illl.1Ihl"'.. 11"1'
IlIf~tHlll.d lJel'.,,,,v ~Ull
OJ 1ll/IIIrn Ihlll"tl! ~hU"'III1J 1.00
.. WWht'/H1lo Dllh'O"Io\l,"'!
~ fll'llllll II", 111111 ~hIlO\o""J Iii Vlil"'Il'
llilr,.. .tllll ^.fdr~,\",,', A.lolr..,-,
-, llHAI l'<l.,l<IIW $ 2.29
g ...f.lIl,
III P'IMm,lrl< or f).I!"
~ DEe 3 0 199~
0
"-
Ie
,-',
",
PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL AND RULE TO FILE COMPLAINT
(ThIS proal 01 semce MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN (10) OA YS AFTER filmg the nollce 0/ appeal, Chack appllcabl. box.s)
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
COUNTY 0' CIMWRT J\NI)
;..
AFFIDA VIT: I hereby .wear or sfflrm thaI I ..rved
D a copy of the Nollce of APP.." Common PI.as No, , upon the District Jusllce deslgnat.d fhereln on
(date 01 .erVlca) Deol!I1tler , 19..2.4-. 0 by lI.ersQnslaervlc'Lu Ii by (certified) (registered) mall. aender'.
receipt .ttached hereto, .nd upon the appellee. (nam.) uor1.8 JeIII\ ~ ,on
~r , 19 94 n by per.on.' .ervlcea:by (certtfled) (reglalered) mall, sender', receipt altached hereto,
iQ(and furth.r that I serv.d th. Rule 10 File a Complalnl accompanying the above Noltce 01 Appeal upon the appall..(altowhom
the Rule was addr....d on ~r , 19-1i.. 0 by per.onal ,ervlce [l by (certified) (regl.tered)
mell, .ender'. r.celpt altechad hereto,
SWORN (AFFIRMED) AND SUBSCRIBED BEFORE ME
THIS DAY OF ,19_
Ronald B. Jomean
Si,no'ur. 0/ em;;;;-
rltl. o/olflcl"
My comml,,'on ..plrt. on '
_11t....___.
, . \
"
,.!
.. "
'j'-'
"'I
.-...,' ',i
;.!b
,:Ii
~\!-\ :
\; E 'J>J
"\t'"
r
Iii
,
'1.111 'I II', .\,
" "., "
, '
I'I;'" \\\"!'",;,,.\,
f~
" " ).\,1_ '"." I' [-
fL.,;
t.,.j,'J
I, ~ i
\ ~ ~.j '~! ,I' V
h'
ii'
,'.,t'
"
('"',,)
on
N
_J'
..
{,.u
.J:"
r~
VI
~ ~
'f:. C'"
..I)
"
, , '
\ I
, I
,iR ' >-
~..
__ .u~.!; ,
-<, ';' ,
,.. !:!lIt:.'l'i
JIt> t::~ '.
__ t""~...,~."
-- ,..) r:.....,~
U;;(',,:~/~
:::::s I..,t..,:.:
.. .,"1':,14/
- ...~~.
.!f! ~!; g
, '
I I
, I
gs~
~ ~ .... 1 ~
]
~~J~j:l
~
P< I S2.~JpO~
.
~ . .1 ~
~ eJ~ ~ I '~ ~~g
~~~
~ . ~<~
~~~~ :>
~
~ u~
,I.,
, I
,
, '
",
,I
v.
: IN WE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
.
.
: CIVIL ACTION - EQUITY
DORIS JEAN DYE,
Plaintiff
JADE JANESKO,
Defendant
.
: NO. 94-7302 CIVIL TERM
ANSWER
AND NOW, comes the Defendant, JADE JANESKO, by and through her attorneys,
Andrews & Johnson and Ronald E. Johnson, Esquire, and answers the Complaint as
follows:
l. Admitted.
2. Admitted.
3. Admitted.
4. Admitted.
S. Admitted.
6. It is admitted that the Defendant guaranteed to buy back the horse during her
discussions with the Plaintiff on July 4, 1994, but in doing so, the Defendant clearly and
specifically advised Plaintiff that the guarantee was conditioned upon the qualifications
generally set forth in the receipt marked Exhibit "A" incorporated into Plaintiffs Complaint.
By way of further answer, on July 4, 1994, Defendant specifically advised Plaintiff that a
condition of the buy-back guarantee was the Defendant's right to have the Defendant's
veterinarian check the horse to insure that it was sound both regarding its health and its
mental state before the buy-back would be honored. By way of additional further answer,
Defendant specifically referred to another horse on Defendant's premises which Defendant
had re-purchased without having her own veterinarian check the horse and subsequently
found that the horse had apparently been mistreated and was no longer mentally sound and
that Defendant was not going to have something such as that happen again and that that
was the reason for the provision in the buy-back guarantee.
7. Admitted.
8. It is specifically denied that at the time of purchase Defendant did not advise
Plaintiff of the condition of the 90-day buy-back guarantee and, in fact, she had been
previously advised as to the conditions of the guarantee as more fully set forth in the
averments contained in paragraph 6 of Defendant's answer which are incorporated herein
by reference thereto. By way of further answer, the conditions of the buy-back guarantee
were clearly stated on the receipt marked Exhibit "A" attached to Plaintiff's Complaint
which was given to Plaintiff at the time she paid Defendant, which provisions speak for
themselves. In addition, at the time Defendant handed Plaintiff the receipt, she had
Plaintiff read the terms and conditions of the buy-back guarantee and Defendant against
explained to Plaintiff that the horse had to also be mentally sound in addition to being
physically sound in order for the buy-back guarantee to be honored.
9. Admitted.
10, The Defendant is without specific knowledge as to whether Plaintiff wormed the
horse, if relevant to this action, but in any event the receipt given to Plaintiff at the time of
purchase clearly indicated that a worming was due for the horse on July 13, 1994. It is
specifically denied that the Plaintiff did not ride the horse for "a period of time," During
the course of the discussions the parties had regarding the purchase of the horse and at the
time of delivery of the horse, Defendant advised Plaintiff not to ride the horse for at least a
week in order to give it time to "settle in." On or about July 10, 1994, approximately two
days after the horse was delivered to Plaintiff, Plaintiff called Defendant complaining about
the horse and specifically told Defendant that at least five different people tried to ride the
horse on the day it was delivered to Plaintiff but they were unable to do so.
11. The allegations of paragraph 11 of Plaintiff's Complaint respecting her inability
to ride the horse as a trail horse because the horse is not road-safe and too shy and skittish
to be a good trail horse are matters as to which, after reasonable investigation, Defendant
is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief and proof thereof is
demanded at trial, By way of further answer, however, at the time of the sale and delivery
of the horse to Plaintiff, the horse was both road-safe and a good trail horse.
12. It is admitted that the Plaintiff contacted Defendant about buying the horse
back, but that conversation occurred on or about July 10, 1994, approximately two days
after the horse was delivered to Plaintiffs premises. At that time, Defendant advised
Plaintiff that in accordance with the terms of the buy-back guarantee, she would have to
contact her veterinarian and make arrangements to have her veterinarian check the horse.
Plaintiff advised Defendant during that conversation that she absolutely refused to allow
Defendant's veterinarian to check the horse and Defendant advised Plaintiff that unless and
until the Defendant's veterinarian was allowed to check the horse she would not pick it up
and return the purchase price to Plaintiff and that Plaintiff should let her know if she was
agreeable to allowing Defendant's veterinarian to check the horse, which was a clear and
specific provision of the buy-back guarantee.
13. It is specifically denied that Defendant refused to contact Plaintiff and would
never agree to take the horse back and Defendant's averments contained in paragraph 12
of Defendant's Answer are incorporated herein by reference thereto. By way of further
answer, Plaintiff did frequently call Defendant and left messages on her telephone
answering machine threatening Defendant's business reputation, the horse itself, and
otherwise harassing the Defendant, but at no time did Plaintiff ever indicate a willingness
to allow Defendant to have Defendant's veterinarian check the horse, all as required under
the terms of the buy-back guarantee.
14. It is specifically denied that Defendant never requested that the horse be made
available for inspection by Defendant's veterinarian andihe averments contained in
paragraph 12 of Defendant's Answer are incorporated herein by reference thereto.
IS. It is specifically denied that the horse was aggressive and not gentle at the time
Defendant sold and delivered the horse to Plaintiff. As to the condition of the horse in
that regard at this time, after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or
information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of said avermtnt and proof thereof is
demanded at trial. By way of further answer, Defendant owned the horse for
approximately two years prior to the sale and delivery of the horse to Plaintiff and during
that time the horse was never aggressive and, in fact, young children had ridden the horse
on many occasions.
16. The allegations of paragraph 16 of Plaintiffs Complaint regarding the horse not
being safe on the road and being very dangerous to ride on the road contrary to the
specific representations of Defendant are matters as to which, after reasonable investigation
Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth
thereof and proof is demanded at trial. By way of further answer, Defendant's averments
contained in paragraph 15 of Defendant's Answer are incorporated herein by reference
thereto.
17. It is specifically denied that Defendant induced Plaintiff to purchase the horse
upon misrepresentation of her demeanor and capacity as a gentle, road-safe, trail horse and
that the horse would be good for Plaintiff to ride. By way of further answer, on July 4,
1994, Plaintiff and her husband both rode the horse for approximately two hours before
they decided to purchase the horse. By way of further additional answer, the averments set
forth in paragraphs 11 and 15 of Defendant's Answer are incorporated herein by reference
thereto.
18. It is specifically denied that the Defendant has repudiated the buy-back
guarantee. To the contrary, Plaintiff lias refused to allow Defendant's veterinarian to check
the horse thus resulting in Plaintiff breaching the terms of the buy-back guarantee and
relieving Defendant from any obligation thereunder.
19. It is admitted that it is normal practice to allow a horse to "settle in" for a
period of time prior to riding the horse. By way of further answer, however, that period
will vary depending on the individual horse and the Defendant advised Plaintiff to allow
this particular horse at least one week 1.0 settle in because this horse had only been on
Defendant's farm for the last two years. By way of further answer and as previously set
forth in paragraph 10 of Defendant's Answer, Plaintiff specifically advised Defendant that
five different people attempted and were unable to ride the horse on the day it was
delivered which is in contradiction to the Plaintiffs allegation that a normal period for a
horse to settle in would be 3 to 4 days.
20. It is specifically denied that Defendant has imposed any terms of the buy-back
guarantee different than those stated in the guarantee and insofar as the letter dated
August 11, 1994, the letter speaks for itself. By way of further answer, it is averred that the
Plaintiff repudiated or rejected the expressed terms of the buy-back guarantee by refusing
to allow the Defendant's veterinarian to check the animal as required under the terms of
the buy-back guarantee.
21. The allegations of Plaintiff's Complain in respect to her providing all board and
proper care for the horse, including veterinarian attention, eating and shelter, are matters
as to which, after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge or information
sufficient to form a belief as to the truth thereof and proof thereof is demanded. By way
of further answer, Defendant admits that she has not picked up the horse, but the reason
she has not done so is because Plaintiff has refused to allow Defendant's veterinarian to
check the horse.
22. It is specifically denied that the Defendant has failed to honor the buy-back
guarantee, all as more specifically set forth in Defendant's Answer regarding Plaintiffs
refusal to allow Defendant's veterinarian to check thc horse, Regarding Plaintiffs
allegations that she has provided board for the horse contrary to her desires and specific