Small Claims vs. Big Tech

[bgbylund]

Bought (second hand) an expensive ($1,200) 32" 4K pc-graphics monitor manufactured by a well-known California based Big Tech manufacturer. The monitor is only 2.5 years old but I bought it second hand from the original owner. The monitor worked fine for a month then developed hardware/pixel issues. I contacted the Big Tech manufacturer with the intent of paying for a professional factory repair. The monitor was sent to the manufacturer's main repair facility with a repair ticket #. The repair rep contacted me with a quote to repair a large scuff on the surface of the screen (not the hardware/pixel repair I asked for) that wasn't there when I shipped it in and wasn't caused by the postal carrier. So far they have been un-helpful and refuse to quote me the cost of the hardware/pixel repair. They are sending the un-repaired monitor back to me.
I am interested in taking this Big Tech company to small claims court.
Simple question: What are my chances of winning $800, the amount quoted for repairing the scratch when:
1.) I'm the second owner and don't have original proof of purchase (I purchased second hand through prominent e-commerce website with documents)
2.) I do not have photos of the screen un-damaged before I sent it in for repairs
Thanks for your advice!

 

[Zigner]

Bought (second hand) an expensive ($1,200) 32" 4K pc-graphics monitor manufactured by a well-known California based Big Tech manufacturer. The monitor is only 2.5 years old but I bought it second hand from the original owner. The monitor worked fine for a month then developed hardware/pixel issues. I contacted the Big Tech manufacturer with the intent of paying for a professional factory repair. The monitor was sent to the manufacturer's main repair facility with a repair ticket #. The repair rep contacted me with a quote to repair a large scuff on the surface of the screen (not the hardware/pixel repair I asked for) that wasn't there when I shipped it in and wasn't caused by the postal carrier. So far they have been un-helpful and refuse to quote me the cost of the hardware/pixel repair. They are sending the un-repaired monitor back to me.
I am interested in taking this Big Tech company to small claims court.
Simple question: What are my chances of winning $800, the amount quoted for repairing the scratch when:
1.) I'm the second owner and don't have original proof of purchase (I purchased second hand through prominent e-commerce website with documents)
2.) I do not have photos of the screen un-damaged before I sent it in for repairs
Thanks for your advice!

I was going to come up with some snarky reply, but I've decided to just give you a straight answer.




Zero.

EDIT: Ok, anywhere from zero to .1%

 

[quincy]

I agree with Zigner. I do not think you have any chance of being awarded $800, based on the facts as you have presented them here.

 

[adjusterjack]

I concur. Zero.

However, feel free to make a nuisance of yourself and file your lawsuit. You might get some go away money.

 

[Taxing Matters]

I disagree with the other responses you received. I think the chances are something greater than zero. However, there are some significant problems here that would mean that your chances are probably not very high and even then the amount you recover might be less than that $800 repair cost the manufacturer quoted you.

The repair rep contacted me with a quote to repair a large scuff on the surface of the screen (not the hardware/pixel repair I asked for) that wasn't there when I shipped it in and wasn't caused by the postal carrier.

This is the most significant problem I see here. As the plaintiff in the case, you have the burden of proving, among other things, that the scratch on the screen was caused by the negligence of the manufacturer's repair facility. But how do you know that the scratch did not occur during shipping? How do you know that the manufacturer's negligence was the cause? What evidence do you have to support that contention? If you cannot convince the court that the manufacturer's negligence was more likely than not the cause of the scratch then you lose. You are hampered here, too, by the fact that you have no evidence other than your own testimony that the scratch wasn't there before you shipped it. But even if the court believed your testimony, you still have to prove the cause was the negligence of the manufacturer and that means being able to offer something to show it didn't happen during shipping.

Next is the issue of damages. You are entitled to the lesser of the cost to repair the damage or the cost to buy the same used screen in the same condition your screen was in at the time you shipped it. I suspect you could pick up a similar screen to yours for less than the $800 offered, especially given that there is another defect in your screen that would lower the value of it even without the scratch.

The next problem is that you may have to sue the manufacturer in California. If you don't live close to the courthouse where the case would be heard you'll have to travel to there to attend court and your costs for transportation, lodging, food, etc, would not get added to whatever judgment you get. So you'd be out that money regardless of the outcome. That might easily be as much or more than you'd win.

 

[quincy]

The biggest problem is that there appears to be NO evidence to support the claim that anyone other than bgbylund caused the damage or that it wasn’t purchased by bgbylund with the damaged screen.

Here is a link to California’s small claims, although I think filing a suit against the manufacturer is time wasted:
https://www.courts.ca.gov/1008.htm?rdeLocaleAttr=en

 

[Zigner]

I disagree with the other responses you received. I think the chances are something greater than zero. However, there are some significant problems here that would mean that your chances are probably not very high and even then the amount you recover might be less than that $800 repair cost the manufacturer quoted you.

You've convinced me. I'm going to edit my answer.

 

[quincy]

You've convinced me. I'm going to edit my answer.

To “something greater than zero?”

 

[Zigner]

To “something greater than zero?”

I was more specific.

I have to acknowledge that some cases in small claims court (or any court, for that matter) are decided entirely wrong for various reasons. It is entirely possible (although HIGHLY improbable) that this OP could succeed in small claims court. Even a default doesn't guarantee a win because the OP still needs to present his case. It is my belief that any reasonable trier of fact, when presented with the facts in this case, would find that there is no way the OP can prove who damaged the TV. Even a default can't fix that.

 

[Taxing Matters]

You've convinced me. I'm going to edit my answer.

Not much of a change. While there are certainly problems that the OP has with making this case, without all he details — like how the OP knows the screen was scratched by the repair facility and not by the shipper — it's hard to evaluate truly how strong or weak it is. Bear in mind that the OP's own testimony is itself admissible evidence and if convincing enough it might get a small claims judge to say the repair shop is liable. I've seen particularly persuasive small claims litigants win cases that otherwise I would say they would lose. Moreover, a California small claims court judge is likely to be at least initially sympathetic to the OP's situation given how consumer friendly that state is compared to many others. Saying flat out that any case like this simply cannot win in small claims court, or has next to no chance, doesn't reflect the reality of such proceedings. Yes, based on what he know the chances of success aren't good. But they also aren't zero, or just 0.1%.

 

[quincy]

Not much of a change. While there are certainly problems that the OP has with making this case, without all he details — like how the OP knows the screen was scratched by the repair facility and not by the shipper — it's hard to evaluate truly how strong or weak it is. Bear in mind that the OP's own testimony is itself admissible evidence and if convincing enough it might get a small claims judge to say the repair shop is liable. I've seen particularly persuasive small claims litigants win cases that otherwise I would say they would lose. Moreover, a California small claims court judge is likely to be at least initially sympathetic to the OP's situation given how consumer friendly that state is compared to many others. Saying flat out that any case like this simply cannot win in small claims court, or has next to no chance, doesn't reflect the reality of such proceedings. Yes, based on what he know the chances of success aren't good. But they also aren't zero, or just 0.1%.

I actually think a 0.1% chance of success is being generous - again based only on what has been presented so far in the way of facts.

 

[Taxing Matters]

I actually think a 0.1% chance of success is being generous - again based only on what has been presented so far in the way of facts.

The biggest hurdle is convincing the court that repair shop caused the scratch. His own testimony that the scratch was not there when he shipped it, if believed by the judge, would be a step in that direction. Then the OP would need to convince the judge that it was more likely than not that the scratch occurred at the repair shop. Remember, the standard is just preponderance of the evidence; the OP doesn't have to prove his case beyond all doubt. The OP has stated that the scratch occurred at the repair shop. I'd want to know on what evidence he's basing that claim. There are various possibilities for making the case that it was more likely than not that the scratch occurred at the repair shop. Testimony about just how well packed the screen was for shipping, for example, may help to convince a judge that it was less likely that it was damaged in shipping, for example. I can think of a variety of ways to present this case depending on the exact evidence available that would give the OP at least some shot at winning it.

 

[quincy]

The biggest hurdle is convincing the court that repair shop caused the scratch. His own testimony that the scratch was not there when he shipped it, if believed by the judge, would be a step in that direction. Then the OP would need to convince the judge that it was more likely than not that the scratch occurred at the repair shop. Remember, the standard is just preponderance of the evidence; the OP doesn't have to prove his case beyond all doubt. The OP has stated that the scratch occurred at the repair shop. I'd want to know on what evidence he's basing that claim. There are various possibilities for making the case that it was more likely than not that the scratch occurred at the repair shop. Testimony about just how well packed the screen was for shipping, for example, may help to convince a judge that it was less likely that it was damaged in shipping, for example. I can think of a variety of ways to present this case depending on the exact evidence available that would give the OP at least some shot at winning it.

I find supporting evidence sorely lacking.

I would be disappointed in any judge who ruled in bgbylund’s favor based only on bgbylund’s testimony that he did not purchase the monitor with a damaged screen, did not himself damage the screen, and that the postal service could not have damaged the screen.

 

[Taxing Matters]

I would be disappointed in any judge who ruled in bgbylund’s favor based only on bgbylund’s testimony that he did not purchase the monitor with a damaged screen, did not himself damage the screen, and that the postal service could not have damaged the screen.

The standard is just preponderance of the evidence, and not knowing what, if any, defense the repair facility offered that kind of testimony can be enough to win. Witness testimony is, after all, admissible evidence and if not rebutted certainly can be enough to win. I've seen cases won with just the testimony of the plaintiff making the case that basically goes "my version of events is at least slightly more likely than the defendant's". That's all it takes to win.

 

[Zigner]

I can think of a variety of ways to present this case depending on the exact evidence available that would give the OP at least some shot at winning it.

Yes...anywhere up to (and including) .1%