- 14 -
profitable locations were reserved for the other Sentinel EPS
recyclers owned by other investors.
Petitioner received "hundreds and hundreds" of complaints
regarding the recyclers for which RRI was responsible, including
the two recyclers that he owned. The end-users complained that
the machines did not work; that they had fires; that too much
labor was involved; and that PI was not maintaining and repairing
the recyclers. Petitioner "couldn't get someone to maintain the
equipment" and began to feel that the investment was "hopeless"
after "about 400 phone calls and pleadings and meetings."
Petitioner never profited in any year from his Sentinel EPS
recyclers, a fact that petitioner attributes to PI's alleged
failure to repair and maintain the recyclers.
At the time of trial, petitioner could not recall the names
of the companies with which he placed his recyclers. When asked
at trial if he knew where his Sentinel EPE and EPS recyclers were
presently located, petitioner replied that he did not have the
"vaguest idea" and that they had been "abandoned" by him because
PI would not maintain them.
At the time that petitioner purchased the Sentinel EPS
recyclers, there was no established market for such recyclers.
C. Expert Testimony
The parties did not agree on the value of either the
Sentinel EPE or EPS recyclers, and petitioner did not stipulate
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011