misrepresentation

[nautical999]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? il

In my small claims suit an independent contractor had approved some work to be done while i was on life support. After getting out of the hospital i was called by the mechanic to settle up a past due invoice. I looked at the invoice and it was for a truck of mine that was there. I paid the bill figuring they put a new motor in since the motor had been blown prior to my hospitalization. Later i was called to get my trailer off the property and found out they had put the tank on it and that's what i was charged for. I canceled the check since i did not authorize this work. The plaintiff even admits that no work was done on the truck they just looked at it. The judge found in there favor. I have asked for a reconsideration and am going to court on it. What kind of law or case law can i bring up that would say that since the invoice was for the truck that no work was done on the plaintiff had misrepresented there work to scam me.

 

[latigo]

My advice is that you do a much better job of explaining to the judge how all these puzzling pieces – such as “ (what) independent contractor approved (what) work)” , etc. - supposedly fit than you have in rambling on incoherently as you have here.
_____________________

But I’m going to take a stab in the (semi) dark and say we are talking about a truck-tractor and trailer. That the plaintiff mechanic installed a tank on the trailer, but invoiced it as work done on the truck. (Big deal!)

Furthermore, that you more than anyone else would know that the invoice didn’t represent the cost of replacing the blown tractor engine.

That the judge allowed the plaintiff to amend his complaint to conform to his evidence (or did so on its own motion) and granted judgement for the parts and labor furnished for you benefit.

And you sir, are the one bent on scamming the mechanic by trying to weasel out of paying him.