Plaintiff amends petition in suit against Infrared Cameras

By David Yates | Nov 12, 2012

Pearl River has amended its petition in its suit against Infrared Cameras, which alleges the defendant company sold the plaintiff a much cheaper camera than what was originally purchased.

As previously reported, the original petition was filed June 1 in Jefferson County District Court.

A month later, Pearl River amended the 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.

Judge Gary Sanderson, 6oth District Court, is assigned to the case.

Case No. B192-522

More News

The Record Network