Infrared Cameras granted new trial following default judgment

David Yates Jun. 13, 2013, 3:08pm

A defendant in a breach of contract suit asserting it was never served notice has been granted a new trial. 

As previously reported, Pearl River filed suit against Infrared Cameras on June 1, 2012, in Jefferson County District Court, alleging the defendant company sold the plaintiff a much cheaper camera than what was originally purchased.

Court records show that plaintiff has its motion for no-answer default judgment granted on Jan. 25.

On April 19 the defendant filed a motion for new trial, asserting it was never properly served.

Judge Gary Sanderson, 6oth District Court, granted the motion on June 6, court papers say.

Pearl River amended its petition on July 18, court records show

The amended petition states that Pearl contracted with Infrared for the purchase of an infrared camera. On Aug. 30, 2011, Infrared sold Pearl what was represented to be a Duracam 320, P-series camera, which was eventually delivered to a customer of Pearl.

On Nov. 11. 2011, the customer notified Pearl that the camera was actually a DL700E, a much cheaper camera.

“The cost difference between the Duracam 320 … and DL700E is substantial,” the suit states. “Defendant has refused to issue a refund to plaintiff.”

The suit alleges the defendant is guilty of deceptive trade practices and breached implied warranties.

Pearl is suing for $17,000 in actual damages, plus attorney’s fees.

Corpus Christi attorney Lance Bruun represents it.

The defendant is represented by attorney John Johnson of the Beaumont law firm Creighton, Fox, Johnson & Mills.

Case No. B192-522

More News