|
From: HAZEL4205@aol.com Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 15:15:11 EDT Subject: Suing CompUSA To: CyberPagan@OutoftheDark.com Where are you on your suit against Comp USA? I sued them two weeks ago over failure to refund a rebate and destroying my computer while supposedly trying to repair it. Here's my petition. I filed it with full discovery and requested punitive. Comes now Lee Ann Torrans and brings this cause against Comp USA, Inc. (CompUSA, Inc.) and in support of her petition would show the following: Comp USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation whose registered agent for service of process in the State of Texas is: Corporation Service Company located at 701 Brazos Street, Suite 1050, Austin, Texas 78701. Plaintiff requests that the Petition be served with the attached Discovery which includes Request for Production of Documents, Interrogatories, and Requests for Admission and the attached Request for Jury Trial. This cause is a Level One Discovery pursuant to Tx. R. Civ. Pro. 190.1, and this Discovery comports to that level of discovery. At the de novo District Court Level a higher level of discovery will be requested as other persons who have also been denied their rebates are joined as plaintiffs. 1. Lee Ann Torrans purchased from CompUSA, Inc. a Hewlett Packard Computer Number 2T1250 in the amount of $1,449.90 from Store Number 717 located at 9368 North Central Expressway, Dallas, Texas, hereinafter referred to as ‘computer’ during the rebate period as advertised on flyers received in the United States mail and on presentations in the store. 2. The sales person represented to Lee Ann Torrans that a rebate would be provided from CompUSA, Inc. for the purchase of the computer and this representation was consistent with the flyers received in the United States mail. Lee Ann Torrans applied for the rebate and provided the receipt provided by CompUSA, Inc. together with the CPU code from the computer box and the application form furnished by the CompUSA salesman. This rebate was offered by CompUSA, Inc. on the Hewlett Packard Lap Top Computer purchased by Lee Ann Torrans from CompUSA, Inc. during the rebate period. This rebate was offered for the purchase of any “Intel Celeron Processor Based Notebook of CompUSA, Inc.†Rebate program C137947 104A. The Hewlett Packard Lap Top Computer was covered by this program. The rebate was the inducement which caused Petitioner to purchase the computer from CompUSA, Inc. 3. CompUSA, Inc. refused to honor the rebate program stating the receipt did not bear a date of purchase. Lee Ann Torrans produced the receipt to CompUSA, Inc. precisely as it had been provided to her. Lee Ann Torrans subsequently produced to CompUSA, Inc. their own internal statement regarding the date of purchase of the computer and her VISA statement which represented the date of purchase of the computer. CompUSA, Inc. continued to refuse to honor the rebate program. Attached hereto as Exhibit “A†is a scanned copy of the rebate program, the product identification and the sales receipt provided by Comp USA and used to access the rebate. 3. On or about the 22nd day of August 2004, the same computer was taken to CompUSA, Inc. to repair the computer. The power connector was not making a connection to the motherboard. The repairs made by CompUSA, Inc. were improper. CompUSA, Inc. soldered the electric access to the mother board of the computer so the electric plug could not fit into the computer and the mother board was entirely ruined as a direct result of this improper repair. 4. CompUSA, Inc. did not admit to Lee Ann Torrans that it had improperly soldered the computer but misrepresented their actions and advised her the computer was not cost effective to repair. After knowingly destroying the computer and failing to refund the rebate the representative of CompUSA offered to sell plaintiff a new computer, and laughed. Attached hereto as Exhibit “B†is a copy of the receipt of payment for repair of the computer from Lee Ann Torrans to Comp USA. 5. The actions of CompUSA, Inc. contained material misrepresentations which were made when CompUSA, Inc. knew that the representation was false, that the speaker knew it was false or that the speaker made it without any knowledge of the truth and as a positive assertion, that the speaker made the representation with the intention that it be acted upon by the other party, that the other party acted in reliance upon the statement. Fraud is also evidenced in the concealment of the damage done to the computer during the repairs as evidenced by Exhibit “B†and this misleading language induced plaintiff to rely upon false information and thereby suffer damages or injury. 5. CompUSA, Inc. has participated in an historical pattern of offering rebates and failing to follow through. Lee Ann Torrans engaged in a prolonged attempt to acquire this rebate. CompUSA, Inc. showed a callous disregard for its duties and obligations with regard to the promised rebate. 6. Wherefore premises considered, Lee Ann Torrans requests: A. CompUSA, Inc. provide to her the reimbursement originally offered for the purchase of the computer with postjudgment and prejudgment interest; B. CompUSA, Inc. repair the Hewlett Packard computer purchased that it attempted to repair and failed to repair and provide a two year warranty on these ‘repairs’ in as much as CompUSA has demonstrated an inability to make trustworthy repairs. CompUSA is requested to make this computer completely functional with a two year warranty or replace it with a computer of comparable specifications that is new. C. CompUSA, Inc. be assessed punitive damages for its failure to acknowledge its improper soldering of her computer in an amount not less than $3,350.00 and its refusal to refund the rebate and its historical conduct in refusing to provide rebates to consumers. D. Any an all judgments this court deems reasonable and all costs of court and attorney’s fees together with pre-judgment and post judgment interest. This suit is brought in light of the fact that the acting manager of CompUSA, Inc. advised the Plaintiff to “sue me.†I almost walked away from this. Appeal de novo is welcomed. Let’s raise the punitive damages and extend the depth of discovery. They finally made me really mad. Sue me. Fine. Let’s get all the people they screwed out of rebates together and let’s get this on. I’ll start recruiting on the internet. They acted fraudulently in advising the plaintiff the computer could not be repaired after they destroyed the connector to the motherboard. They acted fraudulently in continuing to deny the rebate to Plaintiff after Plaintiff complied with all their requests. Respectfully submitted,
|
