It would be pretty hard to prove that he deliberately did not tell you about the other issue upfront. His argument may be that he saw the first problem,, though it was it, fixed it, but since the car did not work as expected, he started looking for another problem and found it. It is very too prove that he did not exercise due diligence as long as he fixed that problem that he billed you for. IMHO, your chances of winning are not too high.
Anyone Here Have Any Experience in Small Claims Court?
- Thread starter black booty lover
- Start date
Small claims is horrible. The Toronto Small Claims staff at Yonge and Sheppard is incompetent. I avoid Small Claims like the plague, but have had to use them a few times . The negotiators push very hard for resolutions even if they are terrible compromises.
It's not worth going to trial in most cases due to how you still may have to pay legal fees depending on the amount of the judgement versus the costs on the other side.
It's not worth going to trial in most cases due to how you still may have to pay legal fees depending on the amount of the judgement versus the costs on the other side.
He didn't deliberatetly not tell me. He misdiagnosed the problem the problem and told me he could fix the car, stuck with with a bill for 2'gs, and is now telling me the car is not worth fixing. You don't have to prove it, you have to make the judge believe your side of the story.
Uh, sorry...but you most definitely will have to prove it. I worked for 20+ years in third party debt collection & as a legal assistant in a law firm specializing in civil litigation. It's possible that it won't even go before a judge (ie, a trial) if he doesn't file a defence, but because it's for damages, the clerk will likely not sign default judgment in that event, it will have to go to an assessment hearing, which is before a judge where you will have to prove your damages. If he DOES file a defence, you will have to prove that he deliberately did whatever you are alleging & proving intent is pretty difficult. Also, you sound like you are proposing to sue the mechanic, but not the shop? That's likely a non-starter.
BTW, the biggest mistakes people make when trying to sue their own claims is not researching how to collect before they do it, not knowing which entity to sue & not knowing enough about how the process works. You don't just decide to sue someone, then bitch because you have no way of collecting. You have to plan this out before you do it to know if it's going to be worth your time & money. Unfortunately, too many people get caught up in "it's the principle of it" mentality to do things right. JMO.
Actually you do have to prove intent. That's how it works. If you can show through say various complaints via the BBB and other legit sources a pattern if behavior it may swing a bit to you. And btw online reviews don't count.
Better you find a mechanic and find out if it was easily seen the repair job was wrong. That's the start.
The mechanic owns the shop, so I guess I want to go after the shop. Yes you have to prove it, but what I'm saying is, it's not O.J on trial for double murder and having to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt. Judges have discretion do they not?? Like I said, my vision of it it's something like Judge Judy but longer and more drawn out. As far as collecting goes, I have no idea how that works.
So what your telling me is mechanics can rip someone off and there's no recourse???
