A#1 Charter Bus Co. vs. Fred&Sons REVISED

Wednesday afternoon the Philadelphia Municipal Court listened to the case brought by A#1 Charter Bus Co. vs. Fred&Sons at City Hall.

Judge Gary DiVito listened intently as to how the ordeal began.

An A#1 Charter Bus Co. bus broke down mid-December en route and needed repairs. The driver then enlisted the help of Fred&Sons repair shop. The defendant agreed to install a used engine provided by the plaintiff for $1800. The bus was to be fixed in eight days, as agreed upon by both parties.

The bus company, which rents out 40-or-more passenger motor coaches, felt the need to sue the repair shop, when it took 60 days. The repair shop also wanted to charge $5,000 for the maintenance, which they claimed increased due to labor costs. Fred&Sons refused to return the bus to A#1, until its demands were met.

The attorney for A#1 Charter Bus Co., Richard K. Teitell, of his own self-titled law office, explained the background of the case and said that Fred&Sons held the bus “hostage.” A#1’s President, Robert Wilson, who was also present at the trial, agreed with Teitell.

The suit, filed January 12, 2007, sought replevin, according to the docket report. This is the recovery of goods wrongfully taken or detained, according to dictionary.com. A#1 wanted the bus in question returned and the charge to fix it brought back down to $1800. Wilson’s attorney stated that his client’s company lost profits because it had one less bus to rent out.

At the time of the trial on January 31, the defendant failed to appear. Teitell, and his client, Wilson, were the only two people present.

Teitell, who had a ruddy complexion and was clad in a grey suit, noted at the trial that Fred&Sons was an unregistered business. The owner’s actual name could be anything. This violates the Fictitious Name Registration Act claimed Teitell.

The Act insures a public record of the identity of an individual who conducts business under any other name then their legal or registered corporate name. In other words, a fictitious name owner must have a public record of their real name, according to floridasmallbusiness.com. Fred&Sons did not have this information available.

Teitell stated that Fred&Sons shouldn’t have a basis for any claims against the plaintiff because of their violation of the Act.

He has much experience in this field since his law office specializes in general civil litigation cases as well as other types of cases. Teitell has over 100 cases under his belt. He was not available for further comment on the trial.

Judge DiVito ruled that the bus should be returned to A#1 Charter Bus Co. from Fred&Sons and the dropped the price charges. This is not a landmark decision, he said.

He has been known to carefully consider all angles of cases that deal with monetary amounts. In the summer of 2006 DiVito looked at the ruling on the Roberts vs. Grand King Buffet case.

The plaintiff, Anastasia Roberts sued Grand King Buffet after she chewed on a bloody, pus-covered bandage, according to the Philadelphia Report: Developments in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. A jury awarded her $4 million for her mental and physical suffering. DiVito, after looking over the case lower the amount to $50,000, which he thought was more appropriate than the maximum amount sought when plaintiff filed her suit. He said that she suffered no physical injury and her mental suffering did not prevent her from continuing her life.

-Selina Poiesz