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

Wednesday afternoon the Philadelphia Municipal Court listened to the case brought by plaintiff 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 $5000 for the maintenance, which they claimed increased due to labor costs. Fred&Sons refused to return the bus to A#1 Charter Bus Co., until its demands were met.

Attorney for A#1 Charter Bus Co., Richard K. Teitell, Esquire, explained the background of the case and said that Fred&Sons held the bus “hostage.” President of A#1 Charter Bus Co., Robert Wilson, who was also present at the trial, confirmed this.

The suit was filed January 12, 2007 for replevin, according to the docket report. This is the recovery of goods wrongfully taken or detained, according to dictionary.com. A#1 Charter Bus Co. 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, of his own law office, and his client, Wilson, were the only two people present.

Teitell, clad in a grey suit with a ruddy complexion, 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.

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 available.

Teitell, a member of the Pennsylvania Bar Association, 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. Personally, Teitell has over 100 cases under his belt. He was not available for further comments on the trial.

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 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 and the actual maximum amount noted when the 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