Ep 66. Pants From Thailand for Sale!; Take My Loan Out of the Tip Jar!

In this episode of Judge Judy, we meet a plaintiff who claims that the defendant owes her money for a pair of designer pants that she purchased in Thailand. According to the plaintiff, the defendant asked her to purchase the pants for her on a trip to Thailand, promising to pay her back. However, when the plaintiff returned home and delivered the pants to the defendant, she never received payment.

As Judge Judy delves deeper into the case, she discovers that the defendant has had financial troubles in the past and has been known to borrow money from her friends. The defendant claims that she does not remember promising to pay the plaintiff back for the pants, but that she would have if she had remembered.

As Judge Judy examines the evidence presented in the case, she must determine whether the defendant did indeed owe the plaintiff money for the pants, and if so, how much she should be required to pay.

In the second case, the plaintiff is a former employee of a restaurant who claims that the defendant, the owner of the restaurant, owes her money that she left in the tip jar. According to the plaintiff, she had loaned the defendant money on several occasions and had always been paid back promptly. However, on her last day of work, she claims that she left $200 in the tip jar with the understanding that the defendant would use it to pay back her most recent loan.

The defendant denies ever seeing or using the $200 that the plaintiff claims to have left in the tip jar. She argues that she did in fact borrow money from the plaintiff, but that she had always paid her back and that she would never steal from the tip jar.

As Judge Judy listens to the testimony of both parties and examines the evidence presented in the case, she must determine whether the plaintiff did in fact leave money in the tip jar, and if so, whether the defendant used it to pay off her loan or whether it was stolen.

Throughout the episode, Judge Judy uses her usual no-nonsense approach to get to the bottom of both cases, questioning both plaintiffs and defendants and issuing her verdict based on the evidence presented. With her sharp wit and years of experience, she offers valuable insights and advice to both parties, helping them to see the error of their ways and learn from their mistakes.