Sign in

Crystal Foods

Sharing is caring! Have something to share about Crystal Foods? Use RevDex to write a review
Reviews Crystal Foods

Crystal Foods Reviews (1)

[redacted] Revdex.comK StNW, 10th FloorWashington, D.C., 20005Dear [redacted] ,Hello, its Inrok *K [redacted] (hereinafter "i" or "me") once again, the manager of Crystal Foods Inc., [redacted] ***, Arlington, VA [redacted] (hereinafter "the store" or "we" or "our" or "us")I am writing this letter in response to the Jan12, response, to our reply, to the complaint filed against Crystal Foods with ID of [redacted] .For the sake of brevity, please refer to our previous response for the background information.According to the customer's response, she rejected our reply for the following reasons: [redacted] alleged that "all their garments were tested and approved for dry clean before the required label is attached" and therefore, [redacted] "believed that this particular damage was due to the failure to follow care label instructions and should be assigned to the dry cleaner"; and"Although the manager described her store as a drop off/pick up station for dry clean, I believe her store is still responsible for the damaged caused ins the care process."Our previous response's proposed theories for the cause of the alleged damage to the customer's coat were simply that: proposed theories.As for the store's liability for the alleged damages, the store is not liable for the alleged damages to the customer's coat, as it will be clear following my explanation of my legal duties under Virginia law, as well as references to my previous explanation of my absolute fulfilment of my due care and duties required under Virginia law.It is unfortunate that the customer was aggrieved during the transactionHowever, at the end of the day, the fact remains that:(1) Crystal Foods and the customer were engaged in a mutually beneficial bailment;(2) Crystal Foods fulfilled the store's duty in the mutually beneficial bailment as the bailee;(3) The customer fulfilled her duties as the bailor in the mutually beneficial bailment by paying the price for dey cleaning her coat; and(4) The transaction is complete without further action required by Crystal Foods.The following section will explain the applicable laws and Virginia precedent and will clearly demonstrate that the store is not liable for the alleged damages.Applicable Laws and PrecedentUnder common law, a bailment is generally defined as "a delivery of goods or personal property, by one person to another, in trust for the execution of a special object upon or in relation to such goods, beneficial either to the bailor or bailee or both, and upon a contract, express or implied, to perform the trust and carry out such object, and thereupon either to redeliver the goods to the bailor or otherwise dispose of the same in conformity with the purpose of the trust."In this case, Crystal Food is the bailee entrusted with the customer's -the bailor's-coat in a mutually beneficial contract to deliver the coat to the dry cleaning store to be dry cleaned and returned, in conformity with the purpose of the trust, in this case, dry cleaning."When there is a bailment for the mutual advantage of bailor and bailee, the bailee is required to exercise ordinary care for the preservation and protection of the goodsHe is not an insurerHe is required to exercise that degree of care which a person of reasonable prudence would use with respect to his own goods."In the case at hand, Crystal Foods, as the bailee, is required to exercise ordinary care in making sure that a garment noted for dry clean only is designated as dry clean only before being delivered to the dry cleaning company.As evidenced by the copy of the dry cleaning ticket (copy available at the end of the document as Attachment 1), the customer's coat was designated and reserved only for dry-clean-only garments.It's crystal clear that Crystal Foods was exercising ordinary care in making sure that the customer's coat, noted for dry clean only, was designated as dry clean only before being delivered to the dry cleaning company.As clearly explained by the Fourth Circuit, Crystal Foods was the bailee, not an insurerCrystal Foods fulfilled the store's duties as the baileeCrystal Foods never had any duties as an insurerThat's clear under the applicable law.In deep contrast to our clear showing of fulfilment of duty, the customer simply, and without any objective proof, argued: "I believe her store is still responsible for the damage caused in the care process."Her argument that she believes the store is still responsible utterly fails under Pinehurst, IncvSchlamowitzIn that case, the Fourth Circuit clearly explainewd who has the burden of proof:"When, of course, a bailor proves the bailment and a failure to return the goods, he proves a primo facie case, shifting the burden of going forward with the evidence of the baileeThis is because the explanation usually is within the exclusive or primary knowledge of the baileeHowever, the burden of persuasion never shiftWherever the burden of goint forward with proof may lie, the burden of persuading the finder of fact that the loss was due to the bailee's want of due diligence remains upon the bailor.'In the case at hand, we demonstrated above that Crystal Foods fulfilled its duty as the baileeHowever, as the appeals court noted, the burden of persuasion never shiftsThe customer has the burden of showing that the alleged damaged was due to "want to dur diligence" by Crystal FoodsThe customer utterly fails to do soShe hasn't shown that the damage was due to want of due diligence by Crystal Foods as simply arguing "I still believe" hardly meets any level of showing "want of due diligence." [redacted] TestsNow, with regard to her [redacted] ***'s test of the garments, there are unclear points.Specifically, it's unclear whether the garment [redacted] is testing is a sample cut directly from the coat she owns or is a garment that [redacted] will provide and test on its ownWhat [redacted] is testing for is a design defect present in all of the garment in the same model coat as the customer's coatHowever the reaction could be a manufacturing defect specific to her coat that occurred during the manufacturing of her specific coatFurther, there could be variables between the dry cleaning solutions used by [redacted] compared to what the dry cleaning company uses to confirm to Virginia's legal standards.Therefore, [redacted] ***'s test results hold no weight as evidence presented to show Crystal Food's alleged liability in the specific case under applicable Virginia law.ConclusionAs explained in the previous letter and this letter, Crystal Foods fulfilled it's duties in the mutually beneficial bailment and therefore is not liable for the alleged damages.Thank you for your time, [redacted] If you require more information, please contact me and I will respond promptlyThank you.Sincerely,Inrok *K**Crystal Foods Inc[redacted] **Arlington, VA [redacted]

Check fields!

Write a review of Crystal Foods

Satisfaction rating
 
 
 
 
 
Upload here Increase visibility and credibility of your review by
adding a photo
Submit your review

Crystal Foods Rating

Overall satisfaction rating

Add contact information for Crystal Foods

Add new contacts
A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z | New | Updated