First, the plaintiff says the defendant, her boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend, is crazy. She claims the ex attacked her car, breaking a windshield, and is suing her for the damages. The defendant admits to attacking the car, but it was because the ex-boyfriend had taken her child and locked himself in the car. She wasn’t charged for anything by the police due to the situation, so if anyone should pay for damages, it should be the man.

Then, the plaintiff bought an antique lamp from the defendant, who packed it, insured it, and sent it on its way to the plaintiff. When it arrived to him, however, it was smashed to pieces. He says it was due to the defendant’s poor packing of the antique item, so he’s suing to get his money back. The defendant says he watched the lamp get packaged perfectly, and thinks the plaintiff is trying to hide something about the lamp. He says the plaintiff won’t bring up the person who signed for the package.

Plus, the plaintiff bought a car from the defendant, but it turns out the vehicle can’t pass an inspection to be street safe. This information was not disclosed to the plaintiff beforehand, and he’s been forced to take the bus while the car sits on the street collecting dust. He’s suing for his money back. The defendant says the plaintiff came to check out the car with his mechanic, who said it was in good shape. He only came back a month later complaining he was sold a lemon, but the defendant told him there was nothing he could do about it.

Don’t forget to rate and subscribe so you never miss an episode.

Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices