HomeMy WebLinkAbout0608 • IN THS C IV IL U IV IS ION OF
COUNTY COU1tT IN ANU FOIt
SAINT LUCIB COt~11Y~ FLORIDA
~a~
CASB N0. 74-395-SP-O1
S~iVI90FT i~lATBR RBFINING CORP.
PlaintifE
-vs-
JUifII~l CRUZ
Uefendant
0 R D B R
Bach year tt~e defendants have ordered a bag of ealt from the plaintiffa.
I~ 1972, vhen the bag of salt was delivered, a aervice charge was rendered
to include the cleaning of the depoaited salt in the brine tank. In the
year 1973, defendant requested delivery of another bag and told the plaintiff
to clean the tank, according to the frork order introduced into evidence.
plaintiff's service man did, in fact, clean the tank but in the procesa used
~ cup of clorox given to him by the defendant. Defendant Well knew that a
service charge was made When aervice was requeated. Unfortunately, a con-
.._a .r ..,.yii ~~t l,~p., ..Prf~rn,PCi ~ the rourt would f ind
-
~.~~V~,.t b~ OL Vb~'. • A~aii i. iG Ni.a a - - ~ T ~ - ~
otherwise but there is no diapute that a aervice Was rendered. Not unlike
other years, a aervice charge was re~dered. Thia Court feels that the
plaintiff ie entitled, eapecially under auch nominal deliveriea of aalt by
~ them, the service charge. Tfie Court also feels that the defendant well kneW
I
E
of this policy. It ia, therefore, upon
~ CONSIDBRATION, ORDBRED AND ADJUDGED that the plaintiff do have and
~ recover of and from the defendant the swn of $15~00 plus the cost of this
action in the amount of $4.50.
WNB ANU ORDERBD in Chambers in Fort Pierce, Florida, thie day
of May, A.D., 1974.
~ ~ ~
'Sj ~.r ~ t' j . • - ~ ~ - .
' - ~ ' ~ ` , j COUNIY JUDGB
- ~
_i ` ,r.; -
~ `~~~I; __'~~--`~''r~:`~'-<i: .
- ~-r:~li.~e~•~`' Vr~; ~ - .
- ~r~::!'...~~"~. ' " ' -
~'K`!' ~ ~ Ah? RECOROEO
~ -;~a; v~~.-:; - - ~ ' f LE O
- : NTY fLA.
~ ~.LUCIE COU
r.~;~3°`€•t - = ~ : : - - ~ IIOCEF. FQ~TRAS ~
L ' . ~ }i.
' a:y''=;~;;:- ~~i:=,`~:-:'•= - - CLERK C1=:ClftT COUIIT
'~'~,f" : ; ; ~ _ . RECORC VEf~~riE~
.~=.~._~~t~';• • A ,J
;'.`-~l'~~Jrililll.~~~-' . ~ ~ V S4 ~ ~1
800K P~ `
,
-
~
_ ~ ~ ~ - - ~ li
~
~ j~:~ri