- 4 hours ago
Tribunal Justice S03E46
Category
📺
TVTranscript
00:00You opened a gourmet pizza restaurant.
00:02You say that he became owner of the business.
00:05Yes.
00:06I close it down due to the fact that a lot of money has been owed,
00:10as well as I lost my personal house.
00:12Why didn't you pay that?
00:13I wasn't aware of that.
00:14You knew nothing about it.
00:15He was supposed to be responsible for all of the debt when you were the owner.
00:20He paid all the bills.
00:21He knew the debt.
00:23I did not.
00:24So you're a very poor owner.
00:26You're a very poor owner.
00:27Now, on Tribunal Justice.
00:52Today's case was filed in San Jose, California.
00:55Now, it's case number 3095 on the calendar in the matter of Reynolds versus Lorenzo.
01:01Thank you, Bart.
01:01You're welcome, Judge.
01:02Parties have been sworn in.
01:03You may be seated.
01:04Ma'am, have a seat, please.
01:06Mr. Reynolds, you opened a gourmet pizza restaurant about 30 years ago,
01:11and the defendant started working there about 24 years ago as a delivery driver.
01:18The defendant ultimately worked his way up into management.
01:21You tell us in your complaint that at one point you had three locations.
01:26You offered the defendant an opportunity to buy into one of those locations,
01:30and you say that he breached that agreement by not paying some taxes that he owed,
01:35and also by not paying you some license fees that he was supposed to pay you pursuant to that agreement.
01:41Your claim is for $10,000.
01:43Mr. Lorenzo, you maintain that he saddled you with his own debts and liabilities.
01:48You had to pay more than $50,000 in order to clear the business of his prior debts,
01:55and ultimately you never got the benefit of the license agreement because you had to close the restaurant because of
02:01COVID.
02:02You deny owing the plaintiff, Mr. Reynolds, any money.
02:05Sir, in your complaint, you said that as time passed, you realized you didn't want to run the business anymore.
02:13Approximately, when did you say, I want out?
02:16As far as running the day-to-day, 1996.
02:20And the name of the business was Pizza Chicago.
02:24Yeah, it's Chicago-style pizza.
02:25But it was in California.
02:26You had a location in Palo Alto, San Jose.
02:30And where was the third location?
02:32The original location was in Santa Clara.
02:34Was in Santa Clara.
02:35Although I no longer owned that one by the time Juan came on board.
02:38And you, sir, you worked at the San Jose location?
02:41Correct.
02:41What were your duties at the San Jose location?
02:44I pretty much got sent there to try to save the store.
02:46So you were the one who was doing the day-to-day work?
02:50Correct.
02:50But he didn't have any ownership interest in San Jose ever, just so we're clear, correct?
02:55Correct.
02:55When did you and Mr. Lorenzo first begin to discuss the notion of his buying into the business?
03:02Well, he didn't start running the San Jose store until he had already bought into owning part of the Palo
03:07Alto store.
03:08So when did he first buy into the Palo Alto store?
03:122005.
03:142005.
03:16But you submitted a contract that's dated January of 2019.
03:21How could the buy-in take place almost 14 years earlier?
03:26That's a separate contract.
03:27What's that contract for?
03:28We had an earlier contract.
03:29Are you suing under that earlier contract?
03:31No, it's suing under this one.
03:32You're mixing up two contracts.
03:34Yeah, yeah.
03:34The contract with the license fee is what is at stake today.
03:37Okay.
03:37The earlier contract is not even in the mix here.
03:39Well, isn't it true that it was pursuant to that earlier contract that you say that he became an owner
03:46of the business?
03:48Yes, to that earlier contract.
03:50Correct.
03:50Yeah, I am quite confused.
03:52Because the contract that you're suing under today...
03:56Yes.
03:56...says that he has to pay the license fee and he has to pay these taxes, correct?
04:01Correct.
04:01And, sir, in 2005, do you recall making a prior deal with the plaintiff to buy into the business?
04:08Yes.
04:08And what were the terms of that deal?
04:10I started buying out at 5% through the years.
04:15We moved up to 15 and then 25 and then 40 and then at the end, I ended with 51
04:22% of the shares of Palo Alto.
04:24So by 2019, you had 51% of the shares.
04:27How much did you pay the plaintiff?
04:29More than $100,000.
04:30About $100,000.
04:32So let's talk then about this 2019 contract, which purports to be an ownership transfer indemnification and licensing agreement.
04:41What ownership is being transferred pursuant to this agreement?
04:44My 49%.
04:45The balance of the company.
04:47And I found it curious in the complaint that you said, and I'm going to quote you,
04:53Juan came to this country as an adult, so he's not great with written English.
04:56English is not his first language, and he mostly does business via phone calls.
05:01Were you concerned, given the fact that he was not as proficient with written English, were you concerned that perhaps
05:07he didn't understand the terms of this contract?
05:10No, because he had a lawyer working on his behalf.
05:13And you had a lawyer at the time, sir?
05:14Correct.
05:14And did the lawyer explain to you that he had a number of unpaid bills and debts and liabilities?
05:21Were you aware of that?
05:22I wasn't aware of that.
05:23After that contract, some of the bad debt from the San Jose location, some of the vendors that I provide
05:30are pizza dough, which is the main ingredient of our restaurant.
05:33And they were not willing to provide to my new establishment that I was going to be 100% ownership
05:39by me.
05:39They were not willing to provide that if I wouldn't pay this debt.
05:43So at some point after you entered into this 2019 agreement for the remaining interest in the Palo Alto store,
05:52you learned that the plaintiff hadn't been paying the bills on the San Jose store.
05:58Correct.
05:59So then what did you do?
06:00So I started working a program with them that I would start paying gradually what I could.
06:07You know, I was already struggling in Palo Alto, so I tried to clear some of the bills.
06:12Some of them I couldn't reach it.
06:15You know, there were big amounts.
06:16Sir, let's take a look at your restaurant when it was busy.
06:22What are we seeing in this video?
06:23Are these items that you purchased for the shop?
06:26Correct, and I just want to make sure that that was my store about a month ago, and now it's
06:30gone.
06:31I closed it down due to the fact that a lot of money has been old, and that restaurant is
06:37no longer there.
06:38How much money would you say you invested in that store?
06:41I put about $380,000 into that location, and I lost it last month.
06:46As well as I lost my personal house due to all these loans.
06:50You lost your home.
06:51Yes, because I keep getting loans out of it and got to the point that I wasn't getting enough business,
06:57and the debt was too big.
06:59And, Mr. Reynolds, you're taking the position that, pursuant to this 2019 agreement, the defendant was assuming the debts and
07:06liabilities, obligations.
07:08If you didn't pay employees, which there's evidence that you didn't.
07:12If you didn't pay your vendors in San Jose, and there's evidence that you didn't, you're taking the position that,
07:17pursuant to this 2019 agreement, he had to assume all of those debts and liabilities.
07:23I'm taking the position that I was not involved in the San Jose store at all for years and years
07:31and years.
07:31Juan, actually, is the one who ran the San Jose store for years.
07:35I didn't know about any of the debts from San Jose.
07:38When you say he ran the business, how much money were you paying him?
07:42Coming up on Tribunal Justice.
07:44We noticed here that there were several employees who were taking paychecks, but were not cashing them.
07:51Sir, they were not cashing them. Why? Do you know why?
07:59Restaurant owner Theo Reynolds is suing ex-business partner Juan Lorenzo for $10,000 when Juan failed to pay licensing
08:06fees after he took over a pizza parlor.
08:08But Juan says they agreed to skip the fee due to COVID closures, and that Theo's bad business moves left
08:14him $50,000 in debt.
08:16When you say he ran the business, how much money were you paying him?
08:19As a manager, he was paid about $125,000 or so.
08:24Is that true, sir? Around $125,000 to manage the store?
08:28To manage both of the stores.
08:29Yes.
08:29So that $125,000 was split between your time at San Jose and in Palo Alto.
08:36Correct.
08:37If I can mention that my last six months of pay for San Jose didn't make it either.
08:43Thank you. Judge Domingo?
08:45What I see is a total imbalance of you overreaching and taking advantage of Mr. Lorenzo's limitations.
08:54I was all prepared to read the same paragraph that Judge Acker read, saying that his communication is limited.
09:01He came to this country as an adult, so he's not great with written English.
09:05And what do we have here? Documents that took me, with a law degree, hours to read over to make
09:11sense of, even though he had a lawyer.
09:13Because I'm looking in this, and I say, okay, let me look up this statute, the Civil Code Section 1540,
09:19which is allegedly supposed to talk about debts and claims that are known and unknown.
09:24Yep.
09:24There's nothing in that statute. The section of the statute should have been 1542, which is talking about a general
09:31release.
09:32A general release is insufficient to waive claims unknown and known, unless it's clear, clear that the person waiving it
09:40understands what's going on.
09:42I don't get that from him. I don't get that from the answers in this courtroom. I don't get that
09:46from these text messages.
09:48May I say something, Your Honor?
09:50You can, yeah.
09:51So, Juan ran the San Jose store.
09:53Okay. No, you said that four times. She liked to say that.
09:56He paid all the bills. He knew the debt of the San Jose store. I did not.
10:01But he's not responsible.
10:02I have no idea the debt of the San Jose store.
10:04Okay.
10:04He did when he signed the debt license agreement.
10:05So, you're a very poor owner.
10:07Juan was the owner as well.
10:09He was not an owner.
10:10Not in San Jose.
10:11He was not an owner of...
10:13He was the owner of Palo Alto.
10:14But what I'm talking about...
10:14And he ran both stores completely. He took care of all...
10:18Okay. So, you know what? I think you're the one with the language.
10:21That's the problem.
10:21Owners are not the same as day-to-day workers in a business.
10:25Now, going back to some of this here with the general release,
10:29we noticed here that there were several employees who were taking paychecks but were not cashing them.
10:36Sir, they were not cashing them. Why? Do you know why?
10:38I have my assistant here who was the manager at the time.
10:41You can step...
10:42Oh, maybe she's an owner, too, then.
10:44Maybe she's responsible for her.
10:45Maybe she's an owner, too. You own it?
10:47No.
10:47Of course not.
10:49So, I was managing...
10:51Let's put your name on the record for a minute.
10:52My name's Anna Yetson Baena.
10:54Oh, you're Anna.
10:54Okay, Anna. So, what happened?
10:56Yes, I'm Anna.
10:56So, I was managing the business along with Juan, just day-to-day operations.
11:03And I had access to, like, bank account information to check for bills and things like that.
11:10And I would see that there was no money in the account to cash a check.
11:15If I was cashing my checks, I know they would have bounced.
11:19So, being a manager and making sure that all the other employees were getting paid was kind of, like, more
11:25important than me.
11:27So, I think when the store closed, I actually had, like, around almost $8,000 in checks that I hadn't
11:34cashed.
11:34How much?
11:35$8,000.
11:35We did end up going to...
11:38Labor Commission.
11:39Labor Commission.
11:40The checks that we received at Labor Commission came from the Palo Alto account.
11:46And I also ended up not cashing that one because I didn't see it as fair that he ended up
11:50having to pay us.
11:52You know, he didn't have any ownership interest in the San Jose location.
11:55Oh, just like you.
11:56No ownership interest.
11:57You know?
11:58Those were, then, checks that were issued at the time that you were the owner of the business.
12:04It just boggles my mind to think that this was a fair, level-playing transaction between two people who were
12:13fully understanding of the English language.
12:15And when I say that, I mean you.
12:17May I please explain something that you guys are overlooking?
12:22Sure.
12:24Juan knew of all the...
12:26Okay, that's it.
12:27You said it before.
12:28Yeah, Mr. Reynolds, let me see if I can kind of put it into perspective.
12:32You were a 49% owner in the Palo Alto store.
12:36Correct.
12:37He was a 51% owner.
12:38Correct.
12:39That in 2019, when the contract that we're here about was signed, you gave up your 49% interest to
12:47him.
12:48Right.
12:48He paid you nothing.
12:50Correct.
12:50In exchange for him paying you nothing, he agreed to accept certain responsibilities and liabilities
12:57Yes.
12:57Not only to the Palo Alto store, now as a 100% owner, but also liabilities and responsibilities to the
13:05San Jose store.
13:06Correct.
13:07Your lawyer actually wrote out this contract, correct?
13:12Both lawyers did.
13:13They traded it together, his lawyer and my lawyer.
13:16I don't think my lawyer drafted it.
13:18That was Taylor's lawyer's draft, but then we look at it.
13:20Now, I actually believe the defendant, when he says that his lawyer simply reviewed this contract that your lawyer initially
13:26prepared.
13:27Your lawyer initially prepared this document and then sent it over to the defendant's lawyer, right?
13:32I don't remember, but probably.
13:34Well, that's going to be important, and it's your case, because if you have no recollection, I can tell you
13:37when I go in the back, I'm dismissing your case.
13:39Who did it?
13:41Coming up on Tribunal Justice.
13:44He was getting a car loan payment.
13:47He was getting a set amount each month and credit cards.
13:51Is that correct?
13:52Credit cards were getting paid.
13:53Explain to me how that's not tax fraud.
14:00Restaurant owner Theo Reynolds says ex-business partner Juan Lorenzo failed to pay licensing fees on his pizza parlor.
14:06He claims Juan owes him $10,000, but Juan says he owes nothing because Theo forgave any fees, then stuck
14:13him with $50,000 of debt and lawsuits.
14:17Your lawyer initially prepared this document and then sent it over to the defendant's lawyer, right?
14:22I don't remember, but probably.
14:23Well, that's going to be important, and it's your case, because if you have no recollection, I can tell you
14:27when I go in the back, I'm dismissing your case.
14:29Who did it?
14:30I believe my lawyer did.
14:31Of course he did.
14:32You wanted to control the initial terms and conditions of this agreement, and so it would have been your lawyer
14:38who included in this original contract the erroneous statute, as mentioned by both Judge Acker and Judge DiMango, that would
14:46provide for the defendant accepting all liabilities, known and unknown.
14:53Do you follow what I'm saying?
14:54I follow what you're saying.
14:55So your lawyer made that mistake, which is important, so everyone understands.
15:00Someone in your position, sir, a purchaser of a business who's being asked to accept liabilities, known and unknown, are
15:07not allowed to do so unless there is a full addendum to the contract listing exactly what you're doing.
15:14Otherwise, you don't know.
15:15And if you don't know, then there could be no meeting of the minds, and the contract cannot exist.
15:20No, I don't know that.
15:21Okay, well, that is free.
15:22I'm not a lawyer.
15:22I don't think that way.
15:23I got it.
15:23That's free advice that I'm telling you.
15:25But then you were getting money, correct, that you were getting a fee, a management fee, from the San Jose
15:33store.
15:33You had money coming in to your business, right?
15:35I am not aware of that.
15:37I was not getting a salary or a management fee for the San Jose store.
15:40We have the bookkeeper here.
15:42Is that correct, ma'am?
15:43Was the plaintiff receiving any money, any salary from the San Jose store?
15:47Yes.
15:47What was it?
15:49He was getting a car loan payment.
15:51He was getting, like, a set amount each month, and credit cards.
15:57Is that correct?
15:58Credit cards were getting paid.
15:59Is that correct?
16:00I guess so.
16:00Okay, so now you guess so.
16:02Now, I'm not saying you're a liar.
16:04Yeah.
16:04But you understand that, number one, if, as you indicated, you have absolutely zero to do with the San Jose
16:09store.
16:09You said that three times to Judge Acker.
16:11You have no interest in running day-to-day or anything, and you're paying credit card debt, and you're paying
16:16car expenses.
16:17Explain to me how that's not tax fraud.
16:20You don't get to start throwing stones at someone for claiming that they violated the contract when you've been siphoning
16:26money off of a business that you have absolutely zero interest off for your own personal use.
16:30Now, are you familiar with the Fair Labor Standards Act, FLSA?
16:34You got sued under it.
16:35You don't remember that?
16:36No.
16:37You don't remember that?
16:37I don't know what you're referring to.
16:39How many businesses do you own?
16:41I don't own any.
16:42How many did you own in 2019 when you signed this contract with the defendant?
16:47It's a wonderful life, Inc., doing business as Pizza Chicago.
16:50One.
16:51Pizza Chicago Investors, LLC.
16:54Who's that?
16:55That was mine.
16:57Pizza Chicago Investors, one, LP.
17:00Can you tell me what that is?
17:02No.
17:02Well, you have to, because that is included in the 2019 agreement that you want us to enforce, because under
17:09that, you and Wonder Food Life transfers to defendant their equity and ownership interests in Pizza Chicago Investors, one, LP.
17:18Okay.
17:18So if you can't tell us what it is, how are we supposed to enforce this contract?
17:22Because you understand law, and I don't?
17:26Well, I'm just going to tell you, you know, Mr. Reynolds.
17:28I don't understand all the details of it, because I'm not a lawyer either.
17:30Well, Mr. Reynolds, I'm going to tell you, I'm going to tell you, I do understand the law with respect
17:33to this contract, and that's different from you not understanding what actually is in the contract that you are looking
17:38for me to enforce.
17:40I'll pass it.
17:41Thank you, Judge.
17:43Mr. Lorenzo, do you remember entering into a settlement agreement with Joseph Martin Distributing?
17:49Yes.
17:50What did they do?
17:51He's one of our providers from San Jose location.
17:54And you paid them over $20,000 for bills that hadn't been paid on the San Jose location.
18:02Correct.
18:03Do you recall any other vendors who you paid because the plaintiff wasn't paying bills in San Jose?
18:09The other one was Galley Produce.
18:12That was like $14,000.
18:14And were there any other vendors who you had to pay?
18:17About right.
18:17And what did they provide you?
18:19Produce.
18:20Another produce.
18:21And do you recall approximately how much you had to pay them?
18:24That was like $16,000.
18:26$16,000.
18:27Yes.
18:27You settled with them because they wouldn't provide to your location because he hadn't paid the San Jose bills.
18:35Correct.
18:35Thank you very much, sir.
18:36I don't have anything else.
18:37So I want to get back to actually the case itself because what you're suing for here, sir, is $10
18:42,000, $5,000 for a portion of this agreement which says that you would let the defendant use the name
18:49Pizza Chicago.
18:50So for the first five years, for a dollar, basically, and after five years, then he would have to pay
18:56$5,000 a year for that.
18:58You're saying that he didn't pay for 2024 and 2025, that he would owe you the $5,000 each.
19:03Correct.
19:04As to the $1,500 in tax, once again, there was no evidence within these documents or anywhere else.
19:09It's actually in the agreement.
19:11It states the $1,500 right in the agreement.
19:13You say it.
19:13It's in there.
19:13Correct.
19:14But there is nothing to substantiate or to confirm that there was indeed a $1,500 debt.
19:21But the bottom line is if, in fact, because I brought up to you initially about the Section 1540, that
19:28statute was inapplicable and there were no specific contentions as to what the debts known were.
19:34And a general release, as that statute says, general release is insufficient to waive unknown claims without specification.
19:42And, of course, that's not in here.
19:43So, one of two things, we could find that this agreement is valid beyond that or want to enforce it
19:50beyond that, or we could find that it was invalid and, therefore, those provisions that you're seeking for us to
19:54enforce would not be proper.
19:56I don't have any other point that I want to make.
20:00Mr. Reynolds, why didn't you pay Joseph Martin distributing the $21,459.66 that the defendants told us about?
20:08Why didn't you pay that?
20:10I wasn't aware of that.
20:12Are you claiming complete ignorance of the fact that they were suing your store?
20:17Yes.
20:17Ma'am, was he aware that San Jose was being sued?
20:22So, I believe an email was sent to him when the suit happened.
20:27And what about you, sir?
20:28When you were notified of that suit, you notified him, right?
20:30Yeah, right away.
20:31Because that was his responsibility.
20:32Correct.
20:33And he blamed me for it under that quote that he said...
20:37That's correct.
20:37The manager...
20:38Yes.
20:39Does that help refresh your recollection, Mr. Reynolds?
20:41The last part of it, though, is that anything that came up in the way of debt for San Jose
20:45that he was responsible for.
20:46Right.
20:47You would agree, though, that if that debt predated the 2019 agreement, that that was your responsibility?
20:54No.
20:55You wouldn't agree with that?
20:56I would not.
20:56Okay.
20:57Paragraph one of the agreement.
20:59Plaintiff, you, transfers to defendant, him, their equity and ownership interest in Pizza Chicago investors conditioned on defendant assuming any
21:11and all claims, demands, losses, damages, taxes, penalties, assessments, interest, attorney's fees, and liabilities of any and every kind existing
21:21as of the effective date of this agreement.
21:26Yes, because he...
21:27That agreement was in 2019.
21:30And the lawsuit that he ended up paying for were for your unpaid bills from June 29, 2016 to January
21:4022, 2018 that predated your agreement.
21:44And your failure to pay that debt and to convince him that it was his responsibility is yet another reason
21:52that the contract you're asking us to enforce is not enforceable because you, sir, breached it first.
21:59At this time, we're going to retire to deliberate.
22:03Court now stands in recess.
22:05This case will be recalled.
22:06Parties are excused in the meantime.
22:16It's interesting when I first read these papers, particularly that portion of the complaint that I think we all focused
22:23on where the plaintiff said he doesn't really understand English very well and he's not a very sophisticated entrepreneur.
22:30And entrepreneur, it struck me that we were dealing with a gross imbalance between the parties.
22:36However, we have to presume that where a party says in an agreement, I have a lawyer and I understand
22:43it, that that's true unless there's great evidence to the contrary, which there may be here.
22:48But I think that there are some bigger issues that concern me.
22:52One, the plaintiff didn't comply with this agreement.
22:56He neither disclosed all of these unknown liabilities.
22:59And even though this agreement does purport to say to the defendant, you've got to pay all of my employee
23:05wage claims because of the statutory confusion, he can't rely on the defendant waiving any of these unknown claims.
23:14The defendant has claims against the plaintiff for the unknown vendor bills.
23:17The defendant also has claims against the plaintiff for the wage claims because they weren't properly disclosed.
23:23So the monies that the defendant already paid the plaintiff certainly would offset any monies that were purportedly due under
23:32this agreement, which I'm not really sure is enforceable in the first instance.
23:36So I would dismiss the plaintiff's case.
23:38My inclination is to dismiss it pursuant to an agreement that I don't want to enforce for fairness purposes.
23:43I think that the plaintiff played this ostrich, you know, position.
23:48As long as I don't know anything, I can prove to them that I had nothing to do with those
23:52businesses.
23:53And so therefore, you'll find that he was the one who basically owned the business and not me.
23:58Bringing us then to the plaintiff's cause of action, which is pursuant to paragraph three.
24:03He owes me $10,000 for two years of unpaid licensing for $5,000 each, which is in this agreement.
24:10There is the tax money that he pointed out very clearly was in this agreement and nowhere else.
24:16The integration clause says it's not included in here, and I have no reason to want to give the plaintiff
24:21a penny.
24:21Yeah, just think about what the plaintiff did.
24:24The plaintiff was using the San Jose business account to pay for his personal credit cards, his personal automobile, and
24:31all expenses related to his personal automobile.
24:34Not to mention the fact that while the plaintiff denied it, I believe the bookkeeper, that he was also paid
24:39a management fee and a salary from San Jose.
24:41So the plaintiff was very good about paying himself and very bad about people who had zero damage.
24:49It had nothing to do with it, just took in hundreds of thousands.
24:52Exactly.
24:53We're unanimous.
24:53I'm going to give him nothing for a change.
24:58Court is back in session.
25:00Parties are reminded you're still under oath.
25:02Thank you, Bert.
25:03We have deliberated and we've reached a unanimous verdict.
25:06Mr. Reynolds, you are suing the defendant for license fees and also for taxes that you say he didn't pay
25:14you pursuant to the 2019 agreement.
25:16We're not enforcing this agreement for a number of reasons.
25:19One, you are trying to get him to comply with its terms when you didn't.
25:24You had a number of unpaid debts and liabilities.
25:28You came to this court and tried to suggest that you knew nothing about it.
25:33But what we learned is that you were in the background siphoning off money for your personal bills, for your
25:39car.
25:39But he was supposed to be responsible for all of the debt, for all of the liabilities, for all of
25:45the employees who weren't paid when you were the owner.
25:48And then you want him to assume all of that and enforce this agreement when you don't even tell him
25:54what those liabilities are, when you never disclosed them.
25:57You know, in your complaint, you said he wasn't very good at business.
26:00He's not really good at English, but in fairness, he had a lawyer and we have to presume that the
26:07lawyer read the contract.
26:09But your lawyer drafted this contract, which means that any ambiguities, they are interpreted as against you.
26:17And you didn't even cite the right law, which would have given him the protections that anybody entering into an
26:23agreement like this,
26:24where you're saying, I'm buying your business and I'm going to own all of your bad mistakes.
26:29You got to disclose those mistakes.
26:31And you didn't.
26:32So we are dismissing your case.
26:34And Mr. Lorenzo, we are very sorry to see that you had to close your business.
26:39We know that you put a lot into it.
26:40But really, somebody who has that kind of spirit and that kind of drive, you'll find something else and you
26:46will be successful.
26:48So good luck to you, sir.
26:49That's the verdict of the court.
26:51This case is now concluded.
26:53Parties are excused.
26:54Jimmy, step out.
26:59It's funny that they painted him as the unintelligent immigrant businessman who got taken advantage of because it's just not
27:06the case at all.
27:07Clearly, I find out that he was trying to take advantage of me.
27:10He felt it was worth his while to take on that debt because he would have a business that was
27:15100% his instead of 51% his.
27:18Probably going to try to find something better on my own.
27:23Did someone break an agreement?
27:25Let tribunal justice decide your case.
27:29Find us on social media.
27:31Find us on social media.
28:01Find us on social media.
28:04Find us on social media.
28:06Find us on social media.
28:09Find us on social media.
28:10Find us on social media.
28:10Find us on social media.
28:11Find us on social media.
28:11Find us on social media.
28:11You
Comments