Go To Photographic Evidence
To put this case all on the Record, all Discovery, both Requests and Responses were filed with the Clerk of the Court by the Defendant Pro Se, not just the Certificates of Service.
http://journals.aol.com/rmckin2146/construction-lawsuit/
CURRENT CASE DOCKET -  CONTRACT LAWSUIT            Next Document             Previous document
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA

INSULATED WALL SYSTEMS, INC.,      )
       Plaintiff,                                        )      Civil Action File No.:  
v.                                                          )           05A06942-9
RON MCKINNEY,                                   )        
      Defendant.                                     )


PLAINTIFF INSULATED WALL SYSTEMS, INC.’S DENIALS TO DEFENDANT


WHAT HAS BEEN DENIED (211DENIALS)
2nd Admissions No. 2:

The Plaintiff’s Complaint, fails to set forth a claim upon which relief can be granted, as the evidence does not fully support the claim. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 2: “2. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 3:

Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of unclean hands. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 3: “3. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 4:

Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the doctrine of estoppel. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 4: “4. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 5:

Defendant is not the proximate cause of Plaintiff’s damages. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 5: “5. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 6:

Plaintiff’s breach of contract claim fails for lack of consideration. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 6: “6. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 7:

Plaintiff has failed to mitigate its alleged damages by abandoning the project. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 7: “7. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 8:

Under Georgia’s law of recoupment, Defendant is entitled to deduct the cost of repairing the improperly and negligently installed work from any amounts, if any, owed to Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 8: “8. Plaintiff DENIES this request and further objects to this request to the extent it requests a legal opinion and not an admission of fact which is beyond the scope of the purpose of this discovery tool.”

2nd Admissions No. 11:

Defendant has at all times acted in accordance with Georgia and federal law in his transactions with Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 11: “11. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 12:

Defendant has at all times acted upon the existence of reasonable grounds or belief formed at the time and in light of all circumstances known to him. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 12: “12. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 13:

Plaintiff has not acted at all times upon the existence of reasonable grounds or belief formed at the time and in light of all circumstances known to it. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 13: “13. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 16:

Plaintiff engages in installment-financed sales and cash sales using a salesman to approach customers and close deals in their homes. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 16: “16. In response to this request Plaintiff DENIES the statement as it relates to installment financed sales to the extent that while in the past such transactions have taken place, Plaintiff no longer engages in such transactions. Plaintiff ADMITS the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph.”

2nd Admissions No. 17:

Plaintiff engages in advertising 100% financed sales and mortgage secured lending without a valid lending license issued to John Tabor or Plaintiff in the state of Georgia by the Department of Banking and Finance. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 17: “17. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 18:

John Tabor advertises to potential customers and allows customers to believe his company carries insurance against injury to its workers and the public. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 18: “18. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 21:

Plaintiff employs and pays three or more employees. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 21: “21. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 23:

Not all Plaintiff’s workers carry their own insurance. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 23: “23. DENIED as pled. Plaintiff has no “workers” but engages subcontractors to perform construction services.”

2nd Admissions No. 24:

When Keith Payne was injured on the job Plaintiff and/or John Tabor paid the medical bills. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 24: “24. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 26:

Plaintiff provided Defendant a false address for Ricardo Ruiz. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 26: “26. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 27:

The chief executive officer of Insulated Wall Systems has represented the Plaintiff at all times with the Defendant. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 27: “27. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 29:

Plaintiff’s representative John Tabor is answerable for the actions of Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 29: “29. Plaintiff DENIES this request and further objects to this request to the extent it requests a legal opinion and not an admission of fact which is beyond the scope of the purpose of this discovery tool.”

2nd Admissions No. 37:

Plaintiff specifically guaranteed that the Defendant was not obligated to pay until satisfied with the work. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 37: “37. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 38:

Plaintiff’s representative regularly promises his customers they do not have to pay until they are satisfied. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 38: “38. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 39:

Plaintiff's promises appear clearly hand written on the post card sent to Defendant. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 39: “39. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 41:

Plaintiff's contract provides for the owners signature to show work is “satisfactorily”completed. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 41: “41. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 43:

No reasonable person could be satisfied with unsatisfactory work. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 43: “43. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 45:

Plaintiff breached the contract by making no "good faith" effort to satisfy Defendants complaints. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 45: “45. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 46:

Plaintiff breached the contract by demonstrating its “bad faith” in a letter to Defendant instead of fixing the complained about work. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 46: “46. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 48:

Plaintiff failed to do all work in a "good and workmanlike manner." Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 48: “48. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 49:

The Gwinnett County Planning Commission can require building permits for large“decks” and “slabs”. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 49: “49. In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 50:

Plaintiff failed to build the deck in accordance with Gwinnett County building code. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 50: “50. In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 51:

Plaintiff failed to build the concrete slab in accordance with Gwinnett County building code. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 51: “51. In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 52:

Plaintiff breached the contract by knowingly ordering the “windows” without “argon gas.” Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 52: “52. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 53:

Plaintiff knowingly ordered the windows without argon gas by not putting argon gas on the order form. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 53: “53. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 57:

Plaintiff knowingly failed to provide the tape to tape the seams. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 57: “57. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 62:

Plaintiff failed to completely “cleanup” the job site. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 62: “62. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 63:

John Tabor knows the job site was not cleaned up on December 15, 2004, because he nearly tripped over pieces of cement, wire, scrap wood and other debris left under the deck. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 63: “63. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 64:

Plaintiff failed to provide “all labor and necessary materials to perform good work.” Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 64: “64. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 65:

Defendant had to supply labor, tools and materials that Plaintiff failed to supply. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 65: “65. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 67:

Plaintiff's breaches of the contract have caused money damages for the Defendant. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 67: “67. Plaintiff DENIES this request and further objects to this request to the extent it requests a legal opinion and not an admission of fact which is beyond the scope of the purpose of this discovery tool.”

2nd Admissions No. 68:

Plaintiff's breach of the contract is total. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 68: “68. Plaintiff DENIES this request and further objects to this request to the extent it requests a legal opinion and not an admission of fact which is beyond the scope of the purpose of this discovery tool.”

2nd Admissions No. 70:

Plaintiff's failure to exercise reasonable care in the construction of the deck in accordance with Gwinnett County Building Code has exposed Defendant and Defendant's family to hazardous conditions and risk of injury. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 70: “70. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 71:

The Defendant’s back was injured because of Plaintiff’s negligent construction of the deck, and its subsequent failure to correct the negligent construction once it was known. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 71: “71. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 72:

The Defendant needed to mitigate his damages from Plaintiff’s poorly done deck construction. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 72: “72. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 73:

The Defendant needed to make the deck safe for his family because Plaintiff left it unsafe. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 73: “73. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 74:

The deck is not properly attached to the house, or supported, or braced. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 74: “74. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 75:

The deck staircase is not reinforced, is not the proper widths, the rise on the steps are not proper, and the landing is insufficient in size to be safe, among other things. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 75: “75. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 76:

Plaintiff's failure to exercise reasonable care in the construction of the deck in accordance with Gwinnett County Building Code has exposed Defendant's residence and the deck itself to hazardous conditions that further risk damages from collapse. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 76: “76. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 77:

Plaintiff's failure to exercise reasonable care in the construction of the concrete slab has resulted in a defective slab. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 77: “77. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 78:

The slab has begun to sink and break up the sidewalk. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 78: “78. In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 79:

Plaintiff's failure to exercise reasonable care in the construction of the concrete slab in accordance with Gwinnett County Building Code has increased the risk of damage to the concrete as it sinks. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 79: “79. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 80:

Plaintiff disregarded Defendant’s stated purpose for contracting the slab. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 80: “80. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 82:

The slab will not function for the purpose it was constructed. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 82: “82. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 83:

Plaintiff's failure to exercise reasonable care in the construction of the deck is gross negligence. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 83: “83. Plaintiff DENIES this request and further objects to this request to the extent it requests a legal opinion and not an admission of fact which is beyond the scope of the purpose of this discovery tool.”

2nd Admissions No. 84:

Plaintiff's failure to exercise reasonable care in the construction of the slab is gross negligence. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 84: “84. Plaintiff DENIES this request and further objects to this request to the extent it requests a legal opinion and not an admission of fact which is beyond the scope of the purpose of this discovery tool.”

2nd Admissions No. 85:

Harm to Defendant's residence and exposure to safety hazards as well as possible Code Enforcement Violations, which effect the marketability of the home all resulted from Defendant's reasonable and justifiable reliance on Plaintiff's undertaking to render services. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 85: “85. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 86:

Defendant’s cost to repair or replace defective work could cost double the original amount. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 86: “86. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 88:

Plaintiff failed to fulfill its obligation to use a reasonable degree of care, skill and ability when attempting to install home improvements onto Defendant’s residence.   Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 88: “88. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 89:

Plaintiff failed to select and send properly skilled workman to perform the tasks of building a deck and slab. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 89: “89. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 90:

Plaintiff's attempted installation of home improvements onto Defendant's residence was negligent. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 90: “90. Plaintiff DENIES this request and further objects to this request to the extent it requests a legal opinion and not an admission of fact which is beyond the scope of the purpose of this discovery tool.”

2nd Admissions No. 91:

Plaintiff’s is liable for its negligence in its attempted installation of windows onto Defendant’s residence. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 91: “91. Plaintiff DENIES this request and further objects to this request to the extent it requests a legal opinion and not an admission of fact which is beyond the scope of the purpose of this discovery tool.”

2nd Admissions No. 92:

The windows were not properly installed according to the manufacturers instructions. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 92: “92. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 93:

Upon inspection of the windows as they are installed it can be observed that the interior walls are compromised by the improper installation of the windows. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 93: “93. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 94:

The windows need to be removed and installed properly. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 94: “94. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 96:

Upon being told of the improper installation of the windows, the Plaintiff has not offered to reinstall the windows properly or come and inspect them in person. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 96: “96. In responding to this request Plaintiff DENIES improper installation and Plaintiff failed to inspect them after complaints. Plaintiff ADMITS the remainder of the request.”

2nd Admissions No. 97:

Plaintiff voided the warranty on the windows it improperly installed. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 97: “97. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 98:

Plaintiff’s workers voided the warranty and damaged a window by placing screws through the frame improperly. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 98: “98. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 99:

John Tabor denied voiding the warranty when his workers improperly placed screws through the frame of the window. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 99: “99. Plaintiff objects to this request to the extent as worded it is nonsensical.” Reworded: When asked, John Tabor denied the warranty on the window was voided by his workers putting screws throught the frame of the window.

2nd Admissions No. 100:

John Tabor never offered to replace the damaged window. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 100: “100. In responding to this request Plaintiff ADMITS Mr. Tabor never offered to replace the windows. Plaintiff DENIES the remainder of the request.”

2nd Admissions No. 101:

Plaintiff's representative specifically stated that rotten wood removed would be replaced with wood so that the vinyl siding would be nailed into wood at these places. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 101: “101. DENIED.”  

2nd Admissions No. 103:

Plaintiff used only 1/4" foam pieces to replace wood removed. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 103: “103. DENIED as pled.”

2nd Admissions No. 104:

Plaintiff never replaces old boards with new wood. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 104: “104. DENIED.”  

2nd Admissions No. 105:

Plaintiff’s representative always tells customers that some wood may need to be removed and that it will be replaced. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 105: “105. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 106:

John Tabor never tells customers that the wood will be replaced with ¼” foam. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 106: “106. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 107:

John Tabor never instructed the workers to replace old boards with new wood. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 107: “107. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 109:

Plaintiff failed to use reasonable care installing two new windows “beside the fireplace”, excessively damaging the sheet rock. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 109: “109. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 112:

The sheet rock wall was damaged because the workman needed to reuse the wall studs, as Plaintiff had not provided them with new 2/4’s to use for proper framing. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 112: “112. DENIED as pled. Plaintiff ADMITS that interior sheetrock was damaged which Defendant had be warned of and knew was his responsibility as Plaintiff does not do interior work.”

2nd Admissions No. 113:

Plaintiff failed to do "good work" on the windows installed in “the stonework.” Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 113: “113. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 115:

By leaving the mortar unfinished around the windows in the stonework, the interior wall is exposed. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 115: “115. In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 117:

Plaintiff failed to use reasonable care when installing the “gutters” which caused leaks between the gutters and fascia board. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 117: “117. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 118:

Plaintiff knows that water falling between the gutters and the fascia board damaged the wet concrete slab. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 118: “118. DENIED.”  

2nd Admissions No. 119:

Plaintiff knows that he scheduled the concrete pour on a rainy day to be delivered at 4:30 p.m. and that the sunlight would be gone by 6:00p.m. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 119: “119. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 120:

Plaintiff failed to do good work leaving installed no less than three (3) cut “screens”, it had promised to replace. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 120: “120. DENIED.”  

2nd Admissions No. 122:

Plaintiff's representative made materially false and misleading statements and omissions breaching its duty of good faith and fair dealing. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 122: “122. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 123:

As a result of Plaintiff’s negligence, Defendant has suffered damages. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 123: “123. Plaintiff DENIES this request and further objects to this request to the extent it requests a legal opinion and not an admission of fact which is beyond the scope of the purpose of this discovery tool.”

2nd Admissions No. 125:

John Tabor understands how to read and interpret the NFRC labels that manufacturers put on their windows. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 125: “125. In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 127:

During the initial sales meeting, around the end of July 2004 or the beginning of August 2004 Plaintiff's representative presented the "Windjammer Series 60" window as the suggested replacement window for Defendant's residence. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 127: “127. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 128:

Plaintiff's representative stated the "Series 60 windows would come with low-e and argon gas as standard features." Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 128: “128. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 129:

Prior to the contract signing date, during a conversation with Defendant's spouse, Plaintiff's representative stated, "the Series 60 windows were no longer available" and "the Series 40 windows have taken the place of the Series 60." Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 129: “129. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 130:

Plaintiff's representative John Tabor knew or should have known that his statements were not true regarding the windows he was offering. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 130: “130. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 131:

The "Windjammer Series 60" is still advertised on the Ted Lansing Web Site as available and is in fact still available. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 131: “131. In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 132:

The “Windjammer Series 60 window” has never been unavailable since it was introduced. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 132: “132. In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 133:

There were no changes in the ordering procedures at Ted Lansing Corporation on or about the time the windows were ordered that would have affected this window order. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 133: “133. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 134:

The Series 60 is clearly different from the Series 40 windows. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 134: “134. DENIED as pled.”

2nd Admissions No. 135:

The Series 40 windows have never come standard with low-e and argon gas. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 135: “135. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 136:

Low-e and argon gas have never automatically come together on the Series 40 windows when ordered with low-e. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 136: “136. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 139:

Defendant reasonably relied on the statements that the Series 40 and Series 60 were the same and would come with the same features and signed the contract. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 139: “139. DENIED as pled.”

2nd Admissions No. 141:

Plaintiff's representative knew that Defendant was reasonably relying on this statement when signing the contract. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 141: “141. DENIED as pled.”

2nd Admissions No. 142:

The windows delivered and installed by Plaintiff do not have “argon gas” and lack some of the features of the Series 60. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 142: “142. In responding to this request Plaintiff ADMITS the windows in question did not have argon gas. Plaintiff DENIES the remaining statements as pled.”

2nd Admissions No. 143:

Plaintiff knows the windows were not ordered to have argon gas as contracted for. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 143: “143. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 145:

John Tabor never orders windows with argon gas, because John Tabor does not believe that windows with argon gas have any value in Georgia. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 145: “145. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 147:

Defendant has been defrauded by Plaintiff's representative’s use of a "bait and switch" tactic. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 147: “147. Plaintiff DENIES this request and further objects to this request to the extent it requests a legal opinion and not an admission of fact which is beyond the scope of the purpose of this discovery tool.”

2nd Admissions No. 150:

Plaintiff's representative, will not admit he ordered the windows without argon gas or that the windows even lack argon gas. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 150: “150. In responding to this request Plaintiff ADMITS that when the windows were ordered Plaintiff understood argon gas was included. Plaintiff further ADMITS that the windows as installed lack argon gas. Plaintiff DENIES the remaining statements made in this request.”

2nd Admissions No. 151:

Plaintiff's representative taunted the Defendant regarding the lack of argon gas in his letter stating, "it seems that there is no practical way to test the windows to definitively determine whether the gas was actually installed in the windows." Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 151: “151. DENIED as pled. Plaintiff ADMITS that the quotation does appear in a letter addressed to Defendant.”

2nd Admissions No. 152:

Windows can be tested for argon gas at either Georgia Tech or Auburn University as both institutions have the capacity to test for the presence of argon gas. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 152: “152. In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 153:

The National Fenestration Rating Council, the vinyl window industry governing body, has at least 13 testing laboratories throughout the United States which have the capacity to test for the presence of argon gas. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 153: “153. In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 154:

The NFRC Label would contain the words “argon fill” if the windows had argon gas in them. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 154: “154. In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 155:

John Tabor knew the Defendant wanted the Series 60 windows. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 155: “155. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 157:

The Defendant was quoted a price of $4,250.00 for the Series 60 windows. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 157: “157. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 158:

The price of the windows did not change when Plaintiff's representative switched to the Series 40 windows. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 158: “158. DENIED as pled.”

2nd Admissions No. 159:

The price quoted by Plaintiff’s representative for Series 60 windows is enough to cover the retail price for Series 60 windows published in the pricing guide by Atrium Windows and Doors. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 159: “159. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 160:

Plaintiff's representative made materially false and misleading statements and omissions. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 160: “160. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 161:

Plaintiff’s representative has breached his duty of good faith and fair dealing with the Defendant. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 161: “161. Plaintiff DENIES this request and further objects to this request to the extent it requests a legal opinion and not an admission of fact which is beyond the scope of the purpose of this discovery tool.”

2nd Admissions No. 162:

Plaintiff’s representative’s said breach caused Defendant money damages. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 162: “162. Plaintiff DENIES this request and further objects to this request to the extent it requests a legal opinion and not an admission of fact which is beyond the scope of the purpose of this discovery tool.”

2nd Admissions No. 163:

Defendant has suffered damages relying on the false statements of Plaintiff's representative John Tabor. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 163: “163. DENIED.”  

2nd Admissions No. 167:

Defendant does not have the enhanced sound and energy savings benefits of the argon gas as the literature and brochures promised. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 167: “167. DENIED as pled.”

2nd Admissions No. 168:

Defendant is deprived of the Energy Star Rating on his windows by Plaintiff’s failure to order them with argon gas. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 168: “168. In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 169:

Plaintiff's representative presented a promise of "Satisfaction Guaranteed" in the initial postcard Defendant received in the mail on or about July 26, 2004. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 169: “169. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 170:

Plaintiff's representative implied “Satisfaction Guaranteed”just like the Home Depot and Sears both offer. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 170: “170. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 172:

Plaintiff’s representative never crosses off the above statement from the contract in cash sales. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 172: “172. DENIED.”  

2nd Admissions No. 175:

During spoken communication on August 23, 2004, Plaintiff's representative reiterated his promise of "satisfaction guaranteed" before any payment is due. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 175: “175. DENIED as pled.”

2nd Admissions No. 176:

Plaintiff's representative's promise of "satisfaction guaranteed" made verbally and in writing to Defendant are false statements. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 176: “176. DENIED as pled.”

2nd Admissions No. 177:

"Satisfaction guaranteed" before payment is due is a false statement. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 177: “177. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 178:

The Defendant is not satisfied; therefore the Defendant is not obligated to pay. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 178: “178. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 179:

The reason Defendant is not satisfied is because all of the work in one aspect or another is unsatisfactory. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 179: “179. In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 180:

The "satisfaction guaranteed" promise concerns a material fact of the contract. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 180: “180. DENIED as pled.”

2nd Admissions No. 181:

A promise that the Plaintiff never intended to perform is a material fact. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 181: “181. Plaintiff DENIES this request and further objects to this request to the extent it requests a legal opinion and not an admission of fact which is beyond the scope of the purpose of this discovery tool.”

2nd Admissions No. 182:

John Tabor’s complete lack of any effort to satisfy any of Defendant’s complaints is evidence that Plaintiff's representative knew the promise was false at the time he made it. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 182: “182. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 184:

Even though John Tabor knew the statements were false at the time he made them, Plaintiff's representative intended for Defendant to act in reliance on Plaintiff's false statements. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 184: “184. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 185:

Defendant reasonably relied on Plaintiff's representative's statements and acted on them by signing the contract on August 23, 2004. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 185: “185. In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 186:

Defendant suffered damages by relying on the false statements of Plaintiff's representative. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 186: “186. Plaintiff DENIES this request and further objects to this request to the extent it requests a legal opinion and not an admission of fact which is beyond the scope of the purpose of this discovery tool.”

2nd Admissions No. 187:

The Defendant is left with the wrong windows, substandard, unsafe and defective work. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 187: “187. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 188:

Defendant must now pay someone else to correct the work. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 188: “188. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 189:

Defendant is dealing with a lawsuit brought by Plaintiff’s unclean hands. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 189: “189. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 190:

Plaintiff’s lawsuit lacks foundation in the facts. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 190: “190. DENIED.”  

2nd Admissions No. 191:

Plaintiff's representative, John J. Tabor and Plaintiff's attorney, Jana B. Tabor, are acting in concert to cover-up the miss deeds of the Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 191: “191. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 192:

John Tabor provided the inducement of "satisfaction guaranteed" and other promises so that Defendant would enter into a contract. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 192: “192. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 193:

John Tabor knows that if he had told the truth that he did not really mean any of the things he was saying the Defendant would never have entered into a contract with him. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 193: “193. DENIED.”  

2nd Admissions No. 194:

John Tabor failed to meet the contract standards when he made statements and wrote things in the contract that he knew were never going to be done. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 194: “194. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 195:

John Tabor unilaterally decided the work was completed to control his costs. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 195: “195. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 196:

John Tabor always unilaterally decides when work is complete on his jobs. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 196: “196. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 197:

John Tabor does not have the personal knowledge to declare the work is completed in accordance with the contract or the understanding of the parties. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 197: “197. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 200:

John Tabor is presenting receipts and charges that he knows do not have anything to do with Defendant’s job. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 200: “200. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 203:

John Tabor threatened litigation before completely inspecting the work. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 203: “203. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 204:

John Tabor threatened litigation before ever stepping one foot on the deck to inspect it. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 204: “204. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 209:

John Tabor chooses to threaten litigation against unsatisfied customers. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 209: “209. DENIED as pled.”

2nd Admissions No. 210:

John Tabor believes that threats of litigation will make people pay who are not satisfied with the work. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 210: “210. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 211:

John Tabor believes that it will cost him less to threat enlitigation than to fix the work. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 211: “211. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 213:

John Tabor can afford to threaten litigation because he can use his wife as his attorney at a reduced cost. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 213: “213. DENIED.”  

2nd Admissions No. 214:

John Tabor considers his wife’s legal services are part of his business plan to keep remedial costs at a minimum.   Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 214: “214. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 219:

The combined acts of the Jana Tabor and John Tabor make them conspirators. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 219: “219. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 221:

The actions in this case are an effort to hide Fraud and Misrepresentation. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 221: “221. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 224:

John Tabor chooses to not dismiss his complaint even though he knows he cannot possibly win a breach of contract case unless the Defendant defaults. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 224: “224. DENIED.”  

2nd Admissions No. 226:

Defendant has suffered money damages because of the overt acts of these conspirators. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 226: “226. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 227:

Defendant is left with defective, unsafe, and substandard work that will need replacement or extensive repair. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 227: “227. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 228:

An unlawful lien encumbers the Defendant’s residence. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 228: “228. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 229:

Unlawful liens encumber homes of other customers of the Plaintiff, which were placed on them by John Tabor using fraudulent information. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 229: “229. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 233:

Each act by John and Jana in this case is carefully designed to pressure the Defendant into "satisfaction" and payment. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 233: “233. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 234:

Plaintiff's representative John J. Tabor, accused Defendant of "extortion" by claiming Defendant was attempting to "greedily...extort" extra work from him and his workers when he knew that statement was not true. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 234: “234. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 236:

Jana Tabor knew or should have known that what Plaintiff is doing is unlawful. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 236: “236. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 237:

John Tabor knew or should have known that what he is doing is unlawful. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 237: “237. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 239:

Plaintiff's representative, John J. Tabor and Plaintiff's attorney, Jana B. Tabor, are using a legal method in an unlawful manner to demand $16,000.00 they have forfeited a claim on. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 239: “239. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 240:

The actions of Plaintiff’s representatives in this case meet the definition of attempted extortion against Defendant. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 240: “240. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 241:

Defendant has suffered damages because of these overt acts of the conspirators. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 241: “241. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 244:

Two of Plaintiff's workers voluntarily offered knowledge of the fact that each is an ex-felon. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 244: “244. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 245:

John Tabor knows about the felony status of these two workers. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 245: “245. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 246:

The Defendant and Defendant’s wife had good reason to feel very unsettled, unsafe and a great deal of consternation over having these workers at their residence because these two workman were the ones building the deck and slab of which Defendant was having serious problems over. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 246: “246. DENIED.”  

2nd Admissions No. 247:

John Tabor knows there were many confrontations over the work, confrontations that included harassing comments regarding the Defendant’s wife. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 247: “247. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 248:

Plaintiff was made aware of the confrontations and Defendant’s concerns. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 248: “248. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 249:

Plaintiff deliberately made no effort to replace the workmen with others more competent to perform the tasks after receiving many complaints from Defendant. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 249: “249. DENIED as pled.”

2nd Admissions No. 250:

Plaintiff deliberately did not take steps to instruct the workman to correct the work, stop arguing with the Defendant, and stop complaining about the lack of materials. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 250: “250. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 251:

Plaintiff’s deliberate lack of action made for a hostile and stressful experience for Defendant and Defendant’s wife. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 251: “251. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 252:

After work stopped uncompleted Defendant did not hear from Plaintiff's representative until December 15, 2004. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 252: “252. DENIED as pled.”

2nd Admissions No. 253:

Defendant was left with an unsafe mess in the yard. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 253: “253. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 254:

Defendant was left to wonder if the work would ever be done. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 254: “254. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 255:

The mess and uncertainty were justifiable cause for severe anguish and embarrassment for Defendant. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 255: “255. DENIED.”  

2nd Admissions No. 257:

Defendant assumed John Tabor was there for the walk through that he promised and so the work could be completed, things fixed, and the yard cleaned up. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 257: “257. In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 258:

John Tabor used an excuse about his wife’s health to explain his absence. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 258: “258. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 259:

After a few minutes into the discussion of the unsafe deck, Plaintiff’s representative John J. Tabor, became very hostile and rudely burst out saying, "I don't have to put up with this bullshit." Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 259: “259. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 260:

Plaintiff's representative's John J. Tabor's cursing was loud enough to be heard by Defendant's wife who was standing nearby. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 260: “260. In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 261:

Defendant’s 93-year-old mother witnessed John Tabor’s hostility toward the Defendant and Defendant’s wife, and this hostility caused both women to become afraid for their safety. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 261: “261. In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 262:

John J. Tabor, then stomped off yelling his threat, "I will see you in court." Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 262: “262. DENIED as pled. Plaintiff does ADMIT that Mr. Tabor stated he would see the Defendant in court.”

2nd Admissions No. 263:

This threat was cause for both Defendant's wife and Defendant's mother to feel severe intimidation and worry. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 263: “263. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 264:

Since John Tabor was threatening their home, the Defendant has cause to be concerned for the safety and well being of his mother and wife. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 264: “264. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 265:

The irrational behavior of Mr. John Tabor indicates he clearly is unstable. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 265: “265. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 266:

After John Tabor became irrational he made the statement to Defendant’s wife, “why don’t you just go hire someone to build brick column under your deck.” Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 266: “266. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 267:

All the Defendant wanted was the deck to be safe for his family and not have posts that would interfere with the storage space under the deck. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 267: “267. In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 269:

Mr. John Tabor already knew Defendant’s 93-year-old Mother was prone to anxiety over the remodeling work because he was told. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 269: “269. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 270:

Feelings of extreme vulnerability and concern that harm might come to her or her home are the expected result for an elderly person witnessing such hostility as presented by John Tabor on that day in December 2004. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 270: “270. DENIED.”  

2nd Admissions No. 271:

Defendant’s Mother would have no place to live but in a nursing home if her home were no longer hers to live in. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 271: “271. In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 272:

Defendant's Mother’s anxiety over this situation makes her concerned with her safety on the unsafe deck, afraid when the doors and windows are not locked, and is causing her blood pressure to be high. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 272: “272. In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 273:

John Tabor knows or should have known that his conduct was clearly outrageous. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 273: “273. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 274:

John Tabor performed this conduct with reckless disregard for the feelings of others. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 274: “274. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 275:

John Tabor cannot deny his conduct was designed specifically to cause Defendant and Defendant's spouse severe emotional distress. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 275: “275. DENIED as this statement is nonsensical.” Reworded: John Tabor's conduct on December 15, 2004 caused Defendant and Defendant's spouse severe emotional distress.

2nd Admissions No. 277:

John Tabor has no regard for the law and/or believes he is above the law. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 277: “277. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 278:

Plaintiff makes unlawful acts a habit in its business practices. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 278: “278. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 279:

John Tabor cannot deny consumers are affected by Plaintiff’s business practices. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 279: “279. DENIED as this statement is nonsensical.” Reworded: Plaintiff's business practices have an affect on its consumers right to get what is contracted for.

2nd Admissions No. 280:

Plaintiff's representative stated a laundry list in his letter of unfounded accusations not all directed at the Defendant but also Defendant's wife. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 280: “280. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 282:

John Tabor believed name calling in his letter would intimidate Defendant into accepting poor work. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 282: “282. DENIED.”  

2nd Admissions No. 283:

John Tabor has written other threatening letters to his dissatisfied customers. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 283: “283. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 284:

John Tabor believed name calling in his letter would make Defendant feel somehow unworthy of “good work.” Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 284: “284. DENIED.”  

2nd Admissions No. 285:

John Tabor believed Defendant’s “dilapidated house” was unworthy of a decent job of home improvements. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 285: “285. DENIED.”  

2nd Admissions No. 286:

John Tabor believed the letter would have a chilling effect on any thought Defendant might have of winning in a court battle. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 286: “286. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 287:

Plaintiff's representative's letter is intentional; specifically designed to make Defendant believe the cost to achieve "satisfaction” would be too high. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 287: “287. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 288:

John Tabor cannot deny his letter is deliberate and is designed to create fear, lower self-esteem, humiliate, belittle, demean, slander, vilify, and in other ways put down the Defendant and his spouse. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 288: “288. DENIED as this statement is nonsensical.” Reworded: John Tabor's letter is designed to create fear, lower self-esteem, humiliate, belittle, demean, slander, vilify, and in other ways put down the Defendant and his spouse.

2nd Admissions No. 289:

John Tabor knew or should have known his letter is so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and is to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 289: “289. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 290:

Plaintiff's representative's letter and John Tabor’s conduct on a personal basis is the direct cause of extreme emotional distress for the Defendant, Defendant's spouse, and Defendant’s Mother. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 290: “290. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 291:

Defendant and Defendant’s family have suffered severe emotional distress because of John Tabor’s actions, the actions of his workers and the whole ordeal, with the distress from this lawsuit continuing for months and months needlessly. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 291: “291. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 292:

Plaintiff’s representative’s actions have caused distress for Defendant for over a year and will continue until settled by a jury trial. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 292: “292. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 293:

Defendant is asking for compensation and punitive damages for the perpetuation of this Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress against the Defendant and Defendant's family. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 293: “293. DENIED as pled.”

2nd Admissions No. 296:

Plaintiff has misused the Civil Justice System by replacing “good faith” problem resolution with threats of “Extensive Litigation” and then carried out those threats with unclean hands in an act of “Bad Faith“ and maliciousness. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 296: “296. DENIED.”  

2nd Admissions No. 297:

Plaintiff's representative by making materially false and misleading statements and omissions has breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing causing Plaintiff’s own damages with its own negligence. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 297: “297. DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No. 300:

The Defendant was fraudulently induced to enter into a contract that was “voidable” at its inception because Plaintiff never intended to perform as contracted and this makes Plaintiff’s contract fully unenforceable. Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 300:


“300. DENIED.”

3rd Admissions No. 1:

1.      The Plaintiff was provided with a genuine copy of the Home Inspection Report prepared by Keith Cook of House Smart, Inc. regarding the work under the contract on the residence at 4083 Red Laurel Way, Snellville, GA 30039. Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 1: “1.In responding to Request No. 1 Plaintiff can neither ADMIT nor DENY the request because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny the same.”

3rd Admissions No. 2:

2.      The Plaintiff’s Contract with the Defendant states "The contractor agrees to furnish all materials and labor necessary to do modernization work on premises located at above address according to the following specifications:" Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 2: “2.ADMITTED. The Contract speaks for itself.”

3rd Admissions No. 3:

3.      The Plaintiff’s Contract with the Defendant states "Contractor agrees to do all work in a good and workmanlike manner." Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 3: “3.ADMITTED. The Contract speaks for itself.”

3rd Admissions No. 4:

4.      The Plaintiff’s Contract with the Defendant states "The acknowledgment of the completion of the work, signed by the owners of said premises, shall be sufficient notice that this contract has been satisfactorily completed by the contractor on the date thereof in accordance with terms of this contract." Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 4: “4.ADMITTED. The Contract speaks for itself.”

3rd Admissions No. 5:

5.      The Plaintiff’s Contract with the Defendant which states "Contractor will do all said work in strict accordance with the ordinances, rules, and requirements of the City, Town or Village, wherein the above mentioned property is located" includes Gwinnett County. Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 5: “5.DENIED.”

3rd Admissions No. 6:

6.      The Plaintiff’s Contract with the Defendant states "We carry adequate insurance to protect our customers against injuries to our workman or the public during the performance of our contract." Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 6: “6.ADMITTED. The Contract speaks for itself.”

3rd Admissions No. 7:

7.      Plaintiff’s Contract with the Defendant has no indication that prior discussions regarding the work, products or services offered are not recognized.   Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 7: “7.DENIED.”

3rd Admissions No. 8:

8.      The Defendant received in the mail Plaintiff’s post card written in John Tabor’s handwriting containing the words “This year has been slow and I need work for my people.” Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 8: “8.DENIED as pled. In further response Plaintiff ADMITS that the post card received by Defendant was written out by John Tabor and contained the words quoted in the Request. However, that post card was not the property of the Plaintiff but was the work of an independent contractor.”

3rd Admissions No. 9:

9.      In John Tabor’s handwriting Plaintiff’s post card contains the words “I will give you the Best Discounts you'll ever see on Name Brand Products and Quality Work.” Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 9: “9.DENIED as pled. In further response Plaintiff ADMITS that the post card received by Defendant was written out by John Tabor and contained the words quoted in the Request. However, that post card was not the property of the Plaintiff but was the work of an independent contractor.”

3rd Admissions No. 10:

10.  In John Tabor’s handwriting Plaintiff’s post card contains the words “Satisfaction Guaranteed.” Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 10: “10.DENIED as pled. In further response Plaintiff ADMITS that the post card received by Defendant was written out by John Tabor and contained the words quoted in the Request. However, that post card was not the property of the Plaintiff but was the work of an independent contractor.”

3rd Admissions No. 11:

11.  In John Tabor’s handwriting Plaintiff’s post card contains the words “Licensed and Insured - 100% Financing.” Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 11: “11.DENIED as pled. In further response Plaintiff ADMITS that the post card received by Defendant was written out by John Tabor and contained the words quoted in the Request. However, that post card was not the property of the Plaintiff but was the work of an independent contractor.”

3rd Admissions No. 12:

12.  The Post Card contains the words “Please call me soon John Tabor 404-291-0450 24 hrs. Insulated Wall Systems, Inc.” Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 12: “12.ADMITTED.”

3rd Admissions No. 13:

13.  Plaintiff has not produced documents to Defendant during discovery that shows the insurance coverage. Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 13: “13.ADMITTED.”

3rd Admissions No. 14:

14.  Plaintiff has not produced documents to Defendant regarding work that was to be done by Keith Payne, Ricardo Ruiz or Adam Kurzeja. Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 14: “14.ADMITTED. No such documents exist.”

3rd Admissions No. 15:

15.  Plaintiff has not produced its corporate documents to Defendant. Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 15: “15.ADMITTED.”

3rd Admissions No. 16:

16.  Plaintiff has not produced documents to Defendant regarding its quality assurance procedures that it followed under this contract. Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 16: “16.ADMITTED. No such documents exist.”

3rd Admissions No. 17:

17.  Plaintiff has not produced documents to Defendant regarding the industry standards that it followed under this contract. Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 18: “17.ADMITTED.”

3rd Admissions No. 18:

18.  Plaintiff has not produced documents to Defendant regarding the manufacturers installation instructions that it followed under this contract. Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 18: “18.ADMITTED.”

3rd Admissions No. 19:

19.  At no time under this contract did John Tabor come to the residence to deal with an unforeseen difficulty causing a work stoppage. Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 19: “19.DENIED.”

3rd Admissions No. 20:

20.  John Tabor scheduled the concrete delivery for 4:30 pm on a day that it was raining. Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 20: “20.DENIED.”
































































































































































































































































































































































































































IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF GWINNETT COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA

INSULATED WALL SYSTEMS, INC.,      )
       Plaintiff,                                        )      Civil Action File No.:  
v.                                                          )           05A06942-9
RON MCKINNEY,                                   )        
      Defendant.                                     )


PLAINTIFF INSULATED WALL SYSTEMS, INC.’S ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANT


WHAT HAS BEEN ADMITTED
  
1st Admission No. 1:

Regarding Exhibits “A -“K” attached to Defendant’s Counterclaim The document attached to the Defendant’s Counterclaim in this action as Defendant’s Exhibit “A” is a genuine copy of the post card Plaintiff mailed to Defendant’s residence. (Defendant’s Exhibit “A” is attached)

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 1:

“1. ADMITTED.”

1st Admission No. 2:

The document attached to the Defendant’s Counterclaim in this action as Defendant’s Exhibit “B” is a genuine copy of one side of Plaintiff’s representative’s business card presented to Defendant. (Defendant’s Exhibit “B” is attached)

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 2:

“2. ADMITTED.”

1st Admission No. 3:

The document attached to the Defendant’s Counterclaim in this action as Defendant’s Exhibit “C” is a genuine copy of the letter Defendant wrote to Plaintiff’s representative, John Tabor on December 20, 2004. (Defendant’s Exhibit “C” is attached)

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 3:

“3. ADMITTED.”

1st Admission No. 4:

The document attached to the Defendant’s Counterclaim in this action as Defendant’s Exhibit “D” is a genuine copy of the letter Defendant wrote to Plaintiff’s representative, John Tabor on January 3, 2005. (Defendant’s Exhibit “D” is attached)

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 4:

“4. ADMITTED.”

1st Admission No. 5:

The document attached to the Defendant’s Counterclaim in this action as Defendant’s Exhibit “E” is a genuine copy of the letter Defendant wrote to Plaintiff’s representative, John Tabor on January 14, 2005. (Defendant’s Exhibit “E” is attached)

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 5:

“5. ADMITTED.”

1st Admission No. 6:

The document attached to the Defendant’s Counterclaim in this action, as Defendant’s Exhibit “F” is a genuine copy of the letter Plaintiff’s representative wrote to Defendant dated January 4, 2005. (Defendant’s Exhibit“F” is attached)

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 6:

“6. ADMITTED.”

1st Admission No. 7:

The document attached to the Defendant’s Counterclaim in this action as Defendant’s Exhibit “G” is a genuine copy of a Gwinnett County Department of Planning and Development document entitled “Deck Additions to a Home – Building Permit Requirements.” (Defendant’s Exhibit “G” is attached)

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 7:

“7. In responding to Request for Admission No.7, Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT nor DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

1st Admission No. 8:

The document attached to the Defendant’s Counterclaim in this action as Defendant’s Exhibit “H” is a genuine copy of a Gwinnett County Department of Planning and Development document entitled “Building Addition to a Home – Building Permit Requirements.” (Defendant’s Exhibit “H” is attached)

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 8:

“8. In responding to Request for Admission No.8, Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT nor DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

1st Admission No. 9:

The document attached to the Defendant’s Counterclaim in this action as Defendant’s Exhibit “I” is a genuine copy of a Ted Lansing Order label for a particular window and two (2) National Fenestration Rating Council labels from two (2)windows with the SO#01949281. (Defendant’s Exhibit “I” is attached)

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 9:

“9. ADMITTED”

1st Admission No. 10:

The document attached to the Defendant’s Counterclaim in this action as Defendant’s Exhibit “J” is a genuine copy of a Ted Lansing Delivery Slip for siding and other materials. (Defendant’s Exhibit “J” is attached)

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 10:

“10.  ADMITTED.”

1st Admission No. 11:

The document attached to the Defendant’s Counterclaim in this action as Defendant’s Exhibit “K” is a genuine copy of a Home Depot Delivery Slip for lumber and other materials. (Defendant’s Exhibit “K” is attached)

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 11:

“11. ADMITTED.”

1st Admission No. 12:

Plaintiff's representative John Tabor's affidavit dated July 27, 2005 submitted in support of "Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss" contains false statements.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 12:

“12. DENIED.”

1st Admission No. 13:

Paragraph 3 of John Tabor’s affidavit dated July 27, 2005 states: “The Defendant takes issue with a sentence contained in the preprinted portion of the contract. That sentence states: “The acknowledgment of the completion of the work, signed by the owner(s), shall be sufficient notice that this contract has been satisfactorily completed by the the owner(s), shall be sufficient notice that this contract has been satisfactorily completed by the contractor on the date thereof in accordance with the terms of this contract.” I am the author and drafter of that sentence.  That sentence is contained in all of the Plaintiff’s pre-printed contracts for the purpose of securing financing from a third party” however these statements in paragraph 3 of the affidavit are untrue.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 13:

“13. In responding to Request No.13 of Defendant’s Request for Admissions, Plaintiff states that the statements referenced therein relating to Paragraph 3 of John Tabor’s Affidavit dated July 27, 2005, are accurate as they restate portions of the Affidavit.  The remainder of Paragraph 13 is DENIED.”

Plaintiff’s amended response to Request for Admission No. 13:

“13. Plaintiff withdraws it initial response to request no. 13 and submits the following: In responding to Request No. 13 of Defendant’s Request for Admissions, Plaintiff states that the statements referenced therein relating to Paragraph 3 of John Tabor’s Affidavit dated July 27, 2005, are accurate as they restate portions of the original Affidavit as it accurately restates portions of Plaintiff’s pre-printed contract.  The remainder of Paragraph 13 is DENIED.”

1st Admission No. 14:

Paragraph 4 of John Tabor’s affidavit dated July 27, 2005 states: “I inserted such sentence in the pre-printed form contract as lenders typically require such language to notify the owner/borrower that such signed statement shall be sufficient for the mortgagor to release the borrowed proceeds to the Plaintiff upon completion of the work. The statement is for the protection of the lender and in no way inures to the benefit of the Plaintiff. Furthermore, the statement has no application in this case as this was a cash sale” however these statements in paragraph 4 of the affidavit are misleading and untrue because John Tabor does not cross out the sentence he refers to from Plaintiff’s contracts that are cash sales.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 14:

“14. In responding to Request No.14 of Defendant’s Request for Admissions, Plaintiff states that the statements referenced therein relating to Paragraph 4 of John Tabor’s Affidavit dated July 27, 2005, are accurate and ADMITTED to the extent that they restate portions of the Affidavit.  The remainder of Paragraph 14 is DENIED.”

1st Admission No. 15: Regarding John Tabor’s Letter

Plaintiff’s representative John Tabor wrote the letter dated January 4, 2005 that is attached to Defendant’s Counterclaim as Defendant’s Exhibit “F”. (Defendant’s Exhibit “F” is attached)

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 15:

“15. ADMITTED.”

1st Admission No. 16:

In his letter toDefendant on January 4, 2005, Plaintiff’s representative John Tabor wrote thefollowing statements, and shall now admit the truthfulness of his statements:

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 16:

“16. In responding to Request No. 16 of Defendant’s Request for Admissions,Plaintiff states that the statements referenced therein in relating to JohnTabor’s letter January 4, 2005, are accurate and ADMITTED to the extent thatthey restate portions of the [Affidavit]. The remainder of Paragraph 16 isDENIED.”

Plaintiff’s amended response to Request for Admission No. 16:

“16. Plaintiff withdraws its initial response to request no. 16 and submits thefollowing: In responding to Request No. 16 of Defendant’s Request for Admissions, Plaintiff states that the statements referenced therein relating to John Tabor’s letter January 4, 2005, to the extent that they are accurate are ADMITTED to the extent that they restate portions of the letter.The remainder of Paragraph 16 is DENIED.”

2nd Admissions No.1:

The Plaintiff was provided with a genuine copy of the Professional Engineering Report prepared by Macon E. Gooch, III Building Consultants, Inc. regarding the work under the contract on the residence at 4083 Red Laurel Way, Laurel CreekS/D.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 1:

“1. Upon information and belief Plaintiff ADMITS the request.”

2nd Admissions No. 14:

Plaintiff is a regular merchant of vinyl siding, replacement windows and other home improvements in the state of Georgia.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 14:

“14. In responding to request number 14 Plaintiff ADMITS the request to the extent that the term “merchant” is used in the context of its plain and ordinary meaning and not as may be codified by the Official Code of Georgia.”

2nd Admissions No. 16:

Plaintiff engages in installment-financed sales and cash sales using a salesman to approach customers and close deals in their homes.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 16:

“16. In response to this request Plaintiff DENIES the statement as it relates to installment financed sales to the extent that while in the past such transactions have taken place,Plaintiff no longer engages in such transactions. Plaintiff ADMITS the remaining allegations contained in this paragraph.”

2nd Admissions No. 22:

Plaintiff does not provide Workers Compensation Insurance through the state of Georgia.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 22:

“22. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 31:

Plaintiff's representative John J. Tabor is the President, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of record for Insulated Wall Systems, Inc. with the authority to sign contracts, make financial decisions, and set company policy.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 31:

“31. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 32:

John J. Tabor is the salesman in this case.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 32:

“32. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 33:

John J. Tabor is educated in law.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 33:

“33. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 34:

Plaintiff’s original attorney is Jana B. Tabor.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 34:

“34. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 35:

Jana B. Tabor and John J. Tabor are husband and wife.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 35:

“35. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 36:

Plaintiff and Defendant entered into an agreement on August 23, 2004, in which Plaintiff agreed to install home improvements onto Defendant's residence “in a good and workmanlike manner.”

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 36:

“36. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 40:

Plaintiff regularly sends the same post card out to potential customers.  

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 40:

“40. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 42:

Defendant is clearly not satisfied, and never has been.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 42:

“42. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 44:

Defendant made Plaintiff aware of his dissatisfaction in three (3) letters.  

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 44:

“44. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 47:

Plaintiff failed to satisfy Defendant’s complaints.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 47:

“47. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 49:

The Gwinnett County Planning Commission can require building permits for large “decks” and “slabs”.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 49:

“49. In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 50:

Plaintiff failed to build the deck in accordance with Gwinnett County building code.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 50:

“50. In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 51:

Plaintiff failed to build the concrete slab in accordance with Gwinnett County building code.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 51:

“51. In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 55:

Plaintiff failed to install windows with argon gas.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 55:

“55. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 56:

The contract specifically calls for the “greenguard housewrap” to be “taped at seams.”

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 56:

“56. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 58:

Plaintiff never tapes the seams when installing housewrap.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 58:

“58. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 59:

John Tabor did not instruct the installers to tape the seams of the housewrap.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 59:

“59. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 60:

Plaintiff failed to tape the seams of the greenguard housewrap.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 60:

“60. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 61:

Plaintiff failed to provide or install “2 pair of vinyl shutters.”

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 61:

“61. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 69:

Plaintiff undertook, for consideration, to build a deck and concrete slab in a manner that would not damage Defendant's residence or the newly built structures themselves.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 69:

“69. ADMITTED.” CONTINUED IN NEXT FILE

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS FILE
2nd Admissions No. 78:

The slab has begun to sink and break up the sidewalk.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 78:

“78. In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 81:

Plaintiff was told the slab was for a future screened-in-porch attached to the house.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 81:

“81. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 95:

John Tabor never instructed the window installer to properly install the windows.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 95:

“95. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 96:

Upon being told of the improper installation of the windows, the Plaintiff has not offered to reinstall the windows properly or come and inspect them in person.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 96:

“96. In responding to this request Plaintiff DENIES improper installation and Plaintiff failed to inspect them after complaints. Plaintiff ADMITS the remainder of the request.”

2nd Admissions No. 100:

John Tabor never offered to replace the damaged window.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 100:

“100. In responding to this request Plaintiff ADMITS Mr. Tabor never offered to replace the windows. Plaintiff DENIES the remainder of the request.”

2nd Admissions No. 102:

Even though many rotten boards on Defendant's residence were removed, Plaintiff failed to replace old boards with new wood.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 102:

“102. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 108:

Even though the contract specifically calls for no work on the inside sheet-rock, Plaintiff's contract also calls for all work to be done in a "good" manner.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 108:

“108. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 110:

Plaintiff failed to correct the damage to the sheet rock.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 110:

“110. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 111:

John Tabor never instructed the workers to be careful of the sheet rock when installing newly framed windows or they would have to repair any damage.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 111:

“111. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 112:

The sheet rock wall was damaged because the workman needed to reuse the wall studs, as Plaintiff had not provided them with new 2/4’s to use for proper framing.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 112:

“112. DENIED as pled. Plaintiff ADMITS that interior sheetrock was damaged which Defendant had be warned of and knew was his responsibility as Plaintiff does not do interior work.”

2nd Admissions No. 114:

Plaintiff left the mortar unfinished around the windows in the stonework.  

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 114:

“114. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 115:

By leaving the mortar unfinished around the windows in the stonework, the interior wall is exposed.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 115:

“115. In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 116:

John Tabor never instructed the workers to finish the mortar.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 116:

“116. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 121:

John Tabor never instructed the workers to repair the damaged window screens.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 121:

“121. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 124:

1.       Plaintiff’s representative presented himself as a professional, as one knowledgeable and experienced in the window and siding industry.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 124:

“124. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 125:

John Tabor understands how to read and interpret the NFRC labels that manufacturers put on their windows.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 125:

“125. In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 126:

John Tabor has attended educational events and received training on the features of the windows he sells.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 126:

“126. In responding to this request Plaintiff ADMITS the same to the extent that Mr. Tabor is advised of window features by various sales representative.”

2nd Admissions No. 131:

The "Windjammer Series 60" is still advertised on the Ted Lansing WebSite as available and is in fact still available.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 131:

“131. In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 132:

The “Windjammer Series 60 window” has never been unavailable since it was introduced.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 132:

“132. In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 137:

On the day of the contract signing, at the insistence of Defendant, Plaintiff's representative presented a window sample he identified as an actual Series 40 window.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 137:

“137. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 138:

John Tabor again stated the "windows would come with low-e and argon gas."

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 138:

“138. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 140:

Plaintiff's contract shows "Series 40 windows" with "argon gas" were contracted for.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 140:

“140. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 142:

The windows delivered and installed by Plaintiff do not have “argon gas” and lack some of the features of the Series 60.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 142:

“142. In responding to this request Plaintiff ADMITS the windows in question did not have argon gas. Plaintiff DENIES the remaining statements as pled.”

2nd Admissions No. 144:

John Tabor used a form he created to order the windows, and the form does not contain a place to order windows with argon gas.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 144:

“144. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 146:

Plaintiff has made no effort to correct the lack of argon gas in the windows.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 146:

“146. ADMITTED.” CONTINUED IN NEXT FILE

CONTINUED FROM LAST FILE
2nd Admissions No. 150:

Plaintiff's representative, will not admit he ordered the windows without argon gas or that the windows even lack argon gas.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 150:

“150. In responding to this request Plaintiff ADMITS that when the windows were ordered Plaintiff understood argon gas was included. Plaintiff further ADMITS that the windows as installed lack argon gas.Plaintiff DENIES the remaining statements made in this request.”  

2nd Admissions No. 151:

Plaintiff's representative taunted the Defendant regarding the lack of argon gas in his letter stating, "it seems that there is no practical way to test thewindows to definitively determine whether the gas was actually installed in the windows."

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 151:

“151. DENIED as pled. Plaintiff ADMITS that the quotation does appear in a letter addressed to Defendant.”

2nd Admissions No. 152:

Windows can be tested for argon gas at either Georgia Tech or Auburn University as both institutions have the capacity to test for the presence of argon gas.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 152:

“152. In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 153:

The National Fenestration Rating Council, the vinyl window industry governing body, has at least 13 testing laboratories throughout the United States which have the capacity to test for the presence of argon gas.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 153:

“153. In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 154:

The NFRC Label would contain the words “argon fill” if the windows had argon gas in them.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 154:

“154. In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 156:

John Tabor knew the Defendant wanted windows with argon gas.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 156:

“156. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 164:

The Series 40 windows are considered a lesser grade window than the Series 60 windows.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 164:

“164. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 165:

The windows presently installed do not have argon gas.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 165:

“165. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 168:

Defendant is deprived of the Energy Star Rating on his windows by Plaintiff’s failure to order them with argon gas.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 168:

“168. In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 171:

Plaintiff's contract states "the acknowledgment of the completion of the work, signedby the owner of said premises shall be sufficient notice that this contract has been satisfactorily completed by the contractor on the date thereof in accordance with terms of this contract."

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 171:

“171. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 174:

John Tabor never told the Defendant that the said sentence would not apply to him.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 174:

“174. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 179:

The reason Defendant is not satisfied is because all of the work in one aspect or another is unsatisfactory.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 179:

“179. In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 185:

Defendant reasonably relied on Plaintiff's representative's statements and acted on them by signing the contract on August 23, 2004.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 185:

“185. In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 198:

John Tabor provided zero communication with Defendant between November 4, 2004 and December 15, 2004.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 198:

“198. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 199:

John Tabor wants it to appear that Plaintiff attempted to satisfy Defendant.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 199:

“199. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 201:

Nothing with respect to work under the contract happened after November 4, 2004 except the passage of time.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 201:

“201. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 202:

Plaintiff's representative John J. Tabor verbally threatened litigation in person on December 15, 2004.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 202:

“202. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 205:

John Tabor made the verbal threat in front of Defendant and Defendant’s spouse.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 205:

“205. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 206:

John Tabor placed a Materialmen Lien on Defendant's residence.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 206:

“206. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 207:

John Tabor did not mail a copy of the lien by certified mail.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 207:

“207. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 208:

John Tabor threatened Defendant with litigation in writing.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 208:

“208. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 212:

John Tabor believes that threats of litigation and actual litigation are a proper use of the legal system.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 212:

“212. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 215:

A written threat demanding $16,000.00 that is not owed is an unlawful demand.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 215:

“215. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 223:

John Tabor and Jana Tabor were informed that Defendant considers this a case of abusive litigation.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 223:

“223. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 231:

The Defendant is asking for compensation and punitive damages allowable by Georgia law and the Fair Business Practices Act.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 231:

“231. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 235:

Plaintiff's attorney, Jana B. Tabor, is an Official or Officer of the Court.  

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 235:

“235. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 242:

The Defendant is asking for compensation and punitive damages for attempted extortion by the husband and wife team of John J. Tabor and Jana B. Tabor.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 242:

“242. ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 256:

In the afternoon of December 15, 2004, Plaintiff's representative, John J. Tabor appeared in Defendant's backyard with no warning or heads up that he would be there on that day.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 256:

“256.ADMITTED.”

2nd Admissions No. 257:

Defendant assumed John Tabor was there for the walk through that he promised and so the work could be completed, things fixed, and the yard cleaned up.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 257:

“257. In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 260:

Plaintiff's representative's John J. Tabor's cursing was loud enough to be heard by Defendant's wife who was standing nearby.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 260:

“260.In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 261:

Defendant’s 93-year-old mother witnessed John Tabor’s hostility toward the Defendant and Defendant’s wife, and this hostility caused both women to become afraid for their safety.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 261:

“261.In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 262:

John J. Tabor, then stomped off yelling his threat, "I will see you in court."

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 262:

“262. DENIED as pled. Plaintiff does ADMIT that Mr.Tabor stated he would see the Defendant in court.”

2nd Admissions No. 267:

All that the Defendant wanted was the deck to be safe for his family and not have posts that would interfere with the storage space under the deck.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 267:

“267. In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 271:

Defendant’s Mother would have no place to live but in a nursing home if her home were no longer hers to live in.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 271:

“271.In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 272:

Defendant's Mother’s anxiety over this situation makes her concerned with her safety on the unsafe deck, afraid when the doors and windows are not locked, and is causing her blood pressure to be high.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 272:

“272. In responding to this request Plaintiff can NEITHER ADMIT or DENY said statement because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to ADMIT or DENY the same.”

2nd Admissions No. 276:

Plaintiff's representative’s letter of January 4, 2005, first indicates he has placed a lien on Defendant's residence.

Plaintiff’s response to Request for Admission No. 276:

“276. ADMITTED.”


3rd Admissions No. 1:

1.      The Plaintiff was provided with a genuine copy of the Home Inspection Report prepared by Keith Cook of House Smart, Inc. regarding the work under the contract on the residence at 4083 Red Laurel Way, Snellville, GA 30039. Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 1: “1.In responding to Request No. 1 Plaintiff can neither ADMIT nor DENY the request because after making reasonable inquiry into the information known or readily obtainable by the Plaintiff it is insufficient to enable it to admit or deny the same.”

3rd Admissions No. 2:

2.      The Plaintiff’s Contract with the Defendant states "The contractor agrees to furnish all materials and labor necessary to do modernization work on premises located at above address according to the following specifications:" Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 2: “2.ADMITTED. The Contract speaks for itself.”

3rd Admissions No. 3:

3.      The Plaintiff’s Contract with the Defendant states "Contractor agrees to do all work in a good and workmanlike manner." Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 3: “3.ADMITTED. The Contract speaks for itself.”

3rd Admissions No. 4:

4.      The Plaintiff’s Contract with the Defendant states "The acknowledgment of the completion of the work, signed by the owners of said premises, shall be sufficient notice that this contract has been satisfactorily completed by the contractor on the date thereof in accordance with terms of this contract." Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 4: “4.ADMITTED. The Contract speaks for itself.”

3rd Admissions No. 5:

5.      The Plaintiff’s Contract with the Defendant which states "Contractor will do all said work in strict accordance with the ordinances, rules, and requirements of the City, Town or Village, wherein the above mentioned property is located" includes Gwinnett County. Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 5: “5.DENIED.”

3rd Admissions No. 6:

6.      The Plaintiff’s Contract with the Defendant states "We carry adequate insurance to protect our customers against injuries to our workman or the public during the performance of our contract." Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 6: “6.ADMITTED. The Contract speaks for itself.”

3rd Admissions No. 7:

7.      Plaintiff’s Contract with the Defendant has no indication that prior discussions regarding the work, products or services offered are not recognized.   Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 7: “7.DENIED.”

3rd Admissions No. 8:

8.      The Defendant received in the mail Plaintiff’s post card written in John Tabor’s handwriting containing the words “This year has been slow and I need work for my people.” Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 8: “8.DENIED as pled. In further response Plaintiff ADMITS that the post card received by Defendant was written out by John Tabor and contained the words quoted in the Request. However, that post card was not the property of the Plaintiff but was the work of an independent contractor.”

3rd Admissions No. 9:

9.      In John Tabor’s handwriting Plaintiff’s post card contains the words “I will give you the Best Discounts you'll ever see on Name Brand Products and Quality Work.” Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 9: “9.DENIED as pled. In further response Plaintiff ADMITS that the post card received by Defendant was written out by John Tabor and contained the words quoted in the Request. However, that post card was not the property of the Plaintiff but was the work of an independent contractor.”

3rd Admissions No. 10:

10.  In John Tabor’s handwriting Plaintiff’s post card contains the words “Satisfaction Guaranteed.” Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 10: “10.DENIED as pled. In further response Plaintiff ADMITS that the post card received by Defendant was written out by John Tabor and contained the words quoted in the Request. However, that post card was not the property of the Plaintiff but was the work of an independent contractor.”

3rd Admissions No. 11:

11.  In John Tabor’s handwriting Plaintiff’s post card contains the words “Licensed and Insured - 100% Financing.” Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 11: “11.DENIED as pled. In further response Plaintiff ADMITS that the post card received by Defendant was written out by John Tabor and contained the words quoted in the Request. However, that post card was not the property of the Plaintiff but was the work of an independent contractor.”

3rd Admissions No. 12:

12.  The Post Card contains the words “Please call me soon John Tabor 404-291-0450 24 hrs. Insulated Wall Systems, Inc.” Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 12: “12.ADMITTED.”

3rd Admissions No. 13:

13.  Plaintiff has not produced documents to Defendant during discovery that shows the insurance coverage. Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 13: “13.ADMITTED.”

3rd Admissions No. 14:

14.  Plaintiff has not produced documents to Defendant regarding work that was to be done by Keith Payne, Ricardo Ruiz or Adam Kurzeja. Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 14: “14.ADMITTED. No such documents exist.”

3rd Admissions No. 15:

15.  Plaintiff has not produced its corporate documents to Defendant. Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 15: “15.ADMITTED.”

3rd Admissions No. 16:

16.  Plaintiff has not produced documents to Defendant regarding its quality assurance procedures that it followed under this contract. Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 16: “16.ADMITTED. No such documents exist.”

3rd Admissions No. 17:

17.  Plaintiff has not produced documents to Defendant regarding the industry standards that it followed under this contract. Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 18: “17.ADMITTED.”

3rd Admissions No. 18:

18.  Plaintiff has not produced documents to Defendant regarding the manufacturers installation instructions that it followed under this contract. Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 18: “18.ADMITTED.”

3rd Admissions No. 19:

19.  At no time under this contract did John Tabor come to the residence to deal with an unforeseen difficulty causing a work stoppage. Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 19: “19.DENIED.”

3rd Admissions No. 20:

20.  John Tabor scheduled the concrete delivery for 4:30 pm on a day that it was raining. Below is quoted Plaintiff’s response to 3rd Request for Admission No. 20: “20.DENIED.”

















































































































































































































































































































































































































http://
memb
ers.aol
.com/r
mckin
2146/
Lawsu
it.htm
l,
http://
homet
own.a
ol.co
m/rmc
kin21
46/La
wsuit.
html

 

page created with Easy Designer