"We know how it works." The final
That epic ended with calls, examinations, courts, reading laws, articles and hassle. I cannot say that we won, but I also cannot say that we lost. We got what we are supposed to be legally, and even a little more. But we could not punish an unscrupulous seller.
Probably, we have not yet reached the level of enlightenment, enough to spit on everything and fight, as they say, "to the end." Perhaps the whole problem is that we take the judicial struggle as a personal war, and a lawyer is like a job he goes to every day and he doesn’t care when this or that process ends. But first things first.
About the beginning of our fight with ION can be read here . Later, in the comments, I wrote that there was no representative of the defendant at the pre-trial preparation, and that the court hearing was scheduled for December 3. After that, I did not write anything else. Now decided to complete the job.
I want to say right away that this was our (my wife’s and my wife’s) first experience of going to court, so much was not so surprising, but even shocking. For example, at a meeting scheduled for 11:30, it began at 12:50, and ended at 13:05. That is, waiting for an hour and a half for 10-15 minutes to retell a lawsuit. It was also surprising that it does not matter at all that the respondent’s actions look, at least, silly and illogical. The main thing is that they are legitimate.
On December 3, a representative of the respondent appeared at the meeting. The first thing he did before the meeting began was that he suggested that we make an amicable agreement, since he (I quote) “does not smile to wander around the courts because of such a small matter.” We, of course, were outraged, like "yes, how dare you, answer according to the law." He said "my business to offer." He offered to return the money for the phone, plus 2 tr. above as non-pecuniary damage.
It should also be noted that the judge could make allowances for the fact that the plaintiff is in court for the first time. She did not behave very well in terms of humanity, but decently in terms of professionalism. The representative of the defendant, of course, did not recognize the claims. He requested a re-examination. Let me remind you that the first examination was ordered by the respondent, and the refusal to return the money was made on the basis of this examination. And here they require re-examination, because do not trust the first. Of course, we expressed it all to the judge, she asked the defendant to voice questions for the first examination. The defendant asked to postpone the meeting, because was not ready for it. And he moved.
On December 9, at the second meeting, the representative of the respondent submitted a written request for a re-examination with an indication of questions. All questions contained in the petition were answered in the first examination. But despite this, the judge granted the request and ordered a re-examination. It was here that we lost faith in the fact that we have at least some chance to restore justice without significant losses and punish an unscrupulous seller.
A day later, I called the lawyer of ION and said that we agreed to an amicable settlement. He quickly prepared an agreement, sent it to me by mail for approval, phoned the judge and the very next day, December 12, the agreement was retroactively signed (December 9) and a definition was made (at the end of the article).
“And if you want, I will tell you how everything would be? You would get the result of the examination at the end of January at best. If the result was in your favor, I would say that I do not trust this expertise either, I would have applied for the invitation of an expert. For the first time, experts usually do not come. For the second time, for good reason, I would not have come by presenting any certificate. And then, if the expert came for the third time, then perhaps the case would be decided in your favor. It would have happened by the end of July 2010. ”
This lawyer said in private conversation with my wife. While they were sitting and waiting for the court decision, he told a lot of things. And that Elena Teterkina & Co. no longer apply for legal issues to lawyers, but “solve” them themselves. And that when our lawsuit came to them, she ran to a lawyer and said something like "this case should be completed and no concessions should be made." That is, here it was more personal, because I “rang” them with my complaints. In general, Helen gets rays of diarrhea in his side. As without it.
')
On December 22, we received our money and handed over this unfortunate phone. For 4 months was spent a huge amount of nerves and time. Instead of 30 thousand rubles, indicated in the lawsuit, we received 13,790. The fortress of lawless lawlessness withstood. In general, a draw.
Highlights:
I want to say thanks to everyone who expressed support in the first topic. I want to apologize to those whose expectations we may not have met.
I do not know whether to lay out samples of the claim and correspondence. If someone needs them, I can do it.
Court ruling:
Thanks to all.
Also ready to answer any questions.
UPD:
At the request of hablauser hellt posting samples of documents:
ION claim
The requirement for the examination in the presence of the buyer
Statement of claim
The rest, if there is, it is only in the form of pieces of paper. Look at home. The rest is not. All in the trash.
Probably, we have not yet reached the level of enlightenment, enough to spit on everything and fight, as they say, "to the end." Perhaps the whole problem is that we take the judicial struggle as a personal war, and a lawyer is like a job he goes to every day and he doesn’t care when this or that process ends. But first things first.
About the beginning of our fight with ION can be read here . Later, in the comments, I wrote that there was no representative of the defendant at the pre-trial preparation, and that the court hearing was scheduled for December 3. After that, I did not write anything else. Now decided to complete the job.
Meeting
I want to say right away that this was our (my wife’s and my wife’s) first experience of going to court, so much was not so surprising, but even shocking. For example, at a meeting scheduled for 11:30, it began at 12:50, and ended at 13:05. That is, waiting for an hour and a half for 10-15 minutes to retell a lawsuit. It was also surprising that it does not matter at all that the respondent’s actions look, at least, silly and illogical. The main thing is that they are legitimate.
On December 3, a representative of the respondent appeared at the meeting. The first thing he did before the meeting began was that he suggested that we make an amicable agreement, since he (I quote) “does not smile to wander around the courts because of such a small matter.” We, of course, were outraged, like "yes, how dare you, answer according to the law." He said "my business to offer." He offered to return the money for the phone, plus 2 tr. above as non-pecuniary damage.
It should also be noted that the judge could make allowances for the fact that the plaintiff is in court for the first time. She did not behave very well in terms of humanity, but decently in terms of professionalism. The representative of the defendant, of course, did not recognize the claims. He requested a re-examination. Let me remind you that the first examination was ordered by the respondent, and the refusal to return the money was made on the basis of this examination. And here they require re-examination, because do not trust the first. Of course, we expressed it all to the judge, she asked the defendant to voice questions for the first examination. The defendant asked to postpone the meeting, because was not ready for it. And he moved.
Replay
On December 9, at the second meeting, the representative of the respondent submitted a written request for a re-examination with an indication of questions. All questions contained in the petition were answered in the first examination. But despite this, the judge granted the request and ordered a re-examination. It was here that we lost faith in the fact that we have at least some chance to restore justice without significant losses and punish an unscrupulous seller.
A day later, I called the lawyer of ION and said that we agreed to an amicable settlement. He quickly prepared an agreement, sent it to me by mail for approval, phoned the judge and the very next day, December 12, the agreement was retroactively signed (December 9) and a definition was made (at the end of the article).
Revelation
“And if you want, I will tell you how everything would be? You would get the result of the examination at the end of January at best. If the result was in your favor, I would say that I do not trust this expertise either, I would have applied for the invitation of an expert. For the first time, experts usually do not come. For the second time, for good reason, I would not have come by presenting any certificate. And then, if the expert came for the third time, then perhaps the case would be decided in your favor. It would have happened by the end of July 2010. ”
This lawyer said in private conversation with my wife. While they were sitting and waiting for the court decision, he told a lot of things. And that Elena Teterkina & Co. no longer apply for legal issues to lawyers, but “solve” them themselves. And that when our lawsuit came to them, she ran to a lawyer and said something like "this case should be completed and no concessions should be made." That is, here it was more personal, because I “rang” them with my complaints. In general, Helen gets rays of diarrhea in his side. As without it.
')
Game over
On December 22, we received our money and handed over this unfortunate phone. For 4 months was spent a huge amount of nerves and time. Instead of 30 thousand rubles, indicated in the lawsuit, we received 13,790. The fortress of lawless lawlessness withstood. In general, a draw.
Highlights:
- The examination must be ordered on its own, so that later there would be no problems with the wording and exceeding the authority of an expert.
- Excimer Agency LLC got into the personal black list of organizations.
- Judgment and logic are incompatible things.
I want to say thanks to everyone who expressed support in the first topic. I want to apologize to those whose expectations we may not have met.
I do not know whether to lay out samples of the claim and correspondence. If someone needs them, I can do it.
Court ruling:
Thanks to all.
Also ready to answer any questions.
UPD:
At the request of hablauser hellt posting samples of documents:
ION claim
The requirement for the examination in the presence of the buyer
Statement of claim
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/79518/
All Articles