My question involves business law in the state of: CA
Basic plot: I have a self help legal service business that helps assist people fight their own traffic tickets. I had a client that was not acquitted, but was refunded the full amount paid to us to adhere to our 100% money-back. However, he was not allowed to attend traffic school, and has filed for a trial de novo to ask for traffic school. He states if he doesn't get permission to go, then he will sue us for insurance increases.
1. Our terms specifically state this (Sorry its a tad bit long). We always send this out along with their documents:
Limitation of Liability:
RidMyTicket and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and attorneys are not liable for any direct, indirect, special, punitive, incidental, exemplary, or consequential damages. RidMyTicket is not liable for any potentially negative outcomes of a trial by written declaration. RidMyTicket is not responsible for any fines or fees associated with traffic infractions and Customer agrees that any and all claims against RidMyTicket are limited to the amount paid by Customer to RidMyTicket.
Customer hereby releases and forever discharges RidMyTicketand their respective predecessors, successors, partners, assigns, customers, shareholders, owners, officers, directors, agents, attorneys, subsidiaries, divisions, and affiliates, (jointly referred to as “Released Parties”) from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, obligations, damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and liabilities of any nature whatsoever, whether or not now known, suspected or asserted, which Customer may have or claim to have against the Released Parties relating in any manner to the service received from RidMyTicket, and hereby covenants not to assert such claims through a lawsuit, an administrative proceeding or otherwise.
This General Release includes, but is not limited to, claims arising under federal, state or local laws or claims arising out of any legal restrictions on RidMyTicket’s policy or service.
This General Release is a full and complete expression of the intent of the parties with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement. No other agreement or representation, express or implied, has been made by either party with respect to the subject matter of this Agreement.
This General Release shall be interpreted to be valid to the full extent possible under the laws of the State of California.
Customer warrants and represents that he/she has not assigned or in any way transferred any claim related to the subject matter of this General Release and that he/she will not allow or assist in such transfer or assignment in the future.
Customer acknowledges that RidMyTicket has provided no guarantee or assurance that the Customer’s case would be dismissed or be found not guilty. Instead, RidMyTicket’s guarantee is an agreement to refund the defense service cost or Flat Rate Service Cost in the event that the case is found guilty, or the fine is not reduced by a particular amount, as part of its “money-back guarantee.” Terms of money-back guarantee are available atwww.ridmyticket.com/terms.
Customer agrees that all documents and defenses prepared byRidMyTicket shall not be used for another case other than the case that the documents were specifically prepared for.
This General Release shall not constitute an admission by any Released Party of any wrongful action or inaction whatsoever.
Customer agrees that this General Release is understood by Customer and is voluntarily entered into by the Customer.
Customer acknowledges that a refund will not be processed if this release and all required documentation is not signed and returned within 14 business days from the date of the verdict. Customer acknowledges that not all costs are refundable, including, but not limited to, shipping and rush fees.
2. We sent the refund out via check, which also contained a letter stating that they agree to the terms & release of liability in the event they deposit the check.
**Point:The only thing is, I believe he doesn't speak English that well**
3. Also, another point I have is that they would have to prove that our service specifically denied them traffic school. However, there is a CA rule of court as well as court case that specifically states against such.
[People v. Wozniak (1987) 197 Cal.App.3d Supp. 43, 243 Cal.Rptr. 686].
California Rule of Court 4.104(c)(2) states:
A defendant who is otherwise eligible for traffic violator school is not made ineligible by entering a plea other than guilty or by exercising his or her right to trial.
Does he honestly have grounds for a lawsuit? Any assistance would help. Thank you very much.