christian louboutin Sunglasses Replacement Lenses

Поделитесь интересными находками в интернет-пространстве.

christian louboutin Sunglasses Replacement Lenses

Сообщение shenavbaoz 19 июн 2013, 15:53

Christian Louboutin Fifi Glitter Silver(Recommended)
Christian Louboutin Pigalle Patent Black(Recommended)
Christian Louboutin Ron Ron Suede Caraibes(Recommended)

'You can't ask me to be responsible for a dress that discoloured when it wasn't on my property,' she said. 'She could have gone in in March to see did the stains come out of the dress, and she didn't.'
Joe Mooney, an expert dry cleaner who examined the dress, said that the stains around the armpit were most likely caused by bodily fluids, false tan, and cosmetics, which untreated, will stain.
Ms Fitzpatrick also denied responsibility for how the stains came to be on the dress. She felt replacing the collar was 'the best option.'
When she contacted Hilda Kavanagh, she said it was nothing to do with her, and was unable to meet Ms Diamond.
There was also a contract between Ms. Diamond and Phyllis Fitzpatrick to remove the stains, he said. 'Unfortunately she didn't allow the dress to dry out before it was bagged and stored,' he said. 'It was brought to a premises in Dublin which is unsuitable for storage. Ms. Diamond couldn't have been expected to know without being told that it was being kept in an unsuitable premises. While the dress was kept in the premises, damage was caused to the dress. They owe a duty of care to the owner of the goods.'
The dress was described as the 'Patricia' dress and was made of 100 per cent silk.
'This wasn't any dress for a Saturday night. This was a bride's dress and it had to be perfect for the day,' she said.
Ms Kavanagh denied the allegations made against her.
He said he was satisfied both defendants were liable to the plaintiff. He granted a decree for 2,000 plus costs against both defendants, jointly and severally. The dress will be returned to the defendants once the money is paid, said the Judge.
Ms. Diamond did not see the dress until the following November when she went to the Dublin shop for a dress fitting appointment.
She told the court that there were 'two very minor blemishes' on the dress a makeup smudge on the collar and a small ink mark on the front of the dress.
Hilda Kavanagh assured her these could be removed, but told her one other person was interested in the dress. The bridetobe thought about it over the weekend, phoned back on Monday, and paid a discounted price of 1,250 for the dress, as it was a display dress.
锘?00 for bride as dress
When the dress was returned to Ms Diamond, she noted that the collar of the dress 'appeared stain free, but the dress was still stained'.
Maeve Diamond claimed that Ms Kavanagh recommended Phyllis Fitzpatrick of All Alteration Services to carry out the necessary spot cleaning on the dress.
It was then decided that Ms Fitzpatrick would take the dress to Excel Dry Cleaners to see if the yellow stains could be removed.
Judge Haughton ruled that a contract was entered into between Maeve Diamond and Hilda Kavanagh, and a condition of that contract was that the stains be removed.
Ms Diamond said she was forced to hire a designer in Dublin to make her a 'similar enough dress' at a cost of approximately 2,500.
She noticed yellow stains beneath the collar and arms, which were 'a different colour from the rest of the dress.'
Several days later, Maeve Diamond received a call from Ms. Kavanagh telling her the dress was clean, and that it was arranged for the dress to go to Phyllis Fitzpatrick's brother David who has an outlet in Dublin, where it would be stored awaiting alterations.
It later emerged that when the dress couldn't be dry cleaned, Ms Fitzpatrick removed the stained collar and replaced it with a new one which she cut from a fresh piece of material. Ms Diamond claimed that this new collar was unlike the original as it was 'shorter and didn't sit as well'.
Ms. Diamond claimed that Phyllis Fitzpatrick said she used warm water to remove the stains and said 'maybe I put it in the bag too early.'
Maeve Diamond, 18 Tobar Ban, Mulgannon, Wexford successfully sued Merkav Ltd, trading as Eden Manor Bridal Wear, Clohass, Enniscorthy, and Phyllis and David Fitzpatrick, trading as All Alteration Services of The Gabba, Ballycomclone, Gorey, for 2,000 in damages plus costs.
'It couldn't be worn in that condition. It was destroyed,' she said. 'It was far from the original dress I had purchased.'
Ms Fitzpatrick said that after she dropped the dress off at her brother's premises in Dublin, she 'thought no more about it'. She denied that she agreed to store the dress for Ms Diamond, saying the premises in Dublin wasn't suitable for longterm storage.
Ms Diamond, who was married in March 2011, told the court that in February 2010 she saw an ad for the dress which she described as 'the one for her' and made an appointment to go into Eden Manor Bridal to try the dress on.
She claimed that she was only ever asked to carry out cleaning to the dress. When asked why she chose to carry out the work free of charge she responded: 'Most of the time, not all of the time, I would get the dress to alter.'
'I would not want to be responsible for a dress for that length of time,' she said, but admitted she didn't tell the plaintiff this. 'If the dress had been examined when it should have been, the water marks would have been seen and it could have been brought to a dry cleaners,' she said.
Сообщения: 153
Зарегистрирован: 11 апр 2013, 14:53
Откуда: Iceland

Вернуться в Развлекательный софт.

Кто сейчас на конференции

Сейчас этот форум просматривают: нет зарегистрированных пользователей и гости: 1


Error. Page cannot be displayed. Please contact your service provider for more details. (9)