questions relating to auto repair

I have just a quick question that I have been trying to research all day...
I am about to bring a lawsuit against an auto repair shop for several things. One of the arguments that I would like to include is the idea that the shop sabotaged our car in an effort to necessitate further repairs. One of the things that was sabotaged was the brake fluid level...curiously, after we got our car back from the shop the emergency light would come on either when the brake was applied or the accelerator was pressed. This turned out to be an extremely low brake fluid level in which the e-brake light is also an indicator of low fluid level. I am trying to word the complaint in such a way that will communicate that the act of sabotage was willful and could have resulted in serious injury or death to myself, my family, and others driving around me should the braking system have failed. For this alone, should I be seeking punitive damages? Any pointers in the right direction as to type of damages, wording/legal terms? The state is SC.

"I am trying to word the complaint in such a way that will communicate that the act of sabotage was willful and could have resulted in serious injury or death to myself, my family, and others driving around me should the braking system have failed. For this alone, should I be seeking punitive damages?"

Forget it. You don't get awarded damages for would have, could have, and what if. And you don't get punitive damages in small claims court. And you don't get anything for aggravation.

You'll need to give us the details of your primary claim. Like what did the repair shop do or not do with respect to the repairs or lack of repairs that you are suing for.

OK...what the repair shop did do:

Tried to "inform" me that the valve body that was in my transmission would not fit the transmission case that it came off of. I didn't fall for it as I was the one that took the transmission out of my car and took it to the shop. This was an effort to get me to pay for more "parts" that they weren't actually going to order, but had every intention of charging me for.

After I called their bluff on that one, they told me that the transmission case was bad and I either needed a new transmission case or they could bore and re-sleeve the case to fix it. I had no way of verifying whether this was true or not at the time because I went to work before the shop opened and got home after the shop closed. I ended up going with the bore and sleeve option that it does the same thing for a fraction of the cost. The shop ended up charging me for a full rebuild kit...for a completely different flavor transmission. What should have cost less than $20 ended up being $118 on my bill.

I was charged for external diagnostics. There was no diagnostic work done, only a tear down and complete rebuild...using a master rebuild kit with ALL of the necessary parts that I supplied to the shop.

There were charges for a solenoid and bolts...both of which were supplied with the transmission...but then they conveniently did not have the ones that were needed. I was charged for gaskets...but I have never heard of someone referring to RTV sealant as "gaskets" that cost $19.95.

There is also the charge for towing the vehicle. The second day we got the car back after having the shop install the newly rebuild transmission, it decided to die. They claimed that even though we had transmission work done, the advertisement of "free tow with transmission work" did not apply as the transmission was originally supplied to them separately (bench job). So when the car was picked up and towed to the shop for them to install the transmission, we were charged for that.

To sum it up, I am disputing ALL costs for parts as well as costs for the diagnostic work and towing...then multiplying that by 3 as allowing by law. I have already discussed the charges with the shop manager and was flat out lied to when I asked point blank about the charges.

Do you see any flaws in my calculation and/or reasoning?

"To sum it up, I am disputing ALL costs for parts as well as costs for the diagnostic work and towing"

Sounds like you have good reason for all that.

"Do you see any flaws in my calculation and/or reasoning?"

Yes:

"...then multiplying that by 3 as allowing by law."

What law would that be?

Cite me the statute number so I can look it up and make sure it applies to your lawsuit.

Here it it:
SC Code of Laws, SECTION 39-5-140
This is under Trade and Commerce (Title 39), Unfair Trade Practices (Chapter 5)

a link:
http://www.schouse.gov/code/t39c005.htm

OK, but there's a lot more to it than just that statutory provision.

The burden of proof and evidentiary requirements are likely to be much more rigorous than your underlying claim.

Read Section 39-5-20 and it's case annotations, particularly Barnes v. Jones Chevrolet which deals with auto repair.

I ran a search for that case and was not able to find a copy of the appellate opinion so you would have to look it up at your local law library.

I did, however, find a couple of items that you should also read up on:

http://www.sccourts.org/opinions/displayOpinionPF.cfm?caseNo=4181

http://www.charlestonlaw.net/utpa.php

The trick is to have all this stuff printed out to show the judge when you cite your references. A small claims court judge isn't going to run to the lawbooks to verify what you tell him about the cases. So if you don't have something to show him he's likely to just ignore it and not award it. Be well-repared. Good luck.

Thanks for the suggestions and help...I already have lots of documentation and some pictures...records of phone conversations and dates/times, receipts, etc.

Let me know how it turns out.

So I get a phone call today from the owner of the shop...he got served today with the complaint and wants me to give him a call. He says that we shouldn't let it go this far and to please, please give him a call. My response...I will only communicate via email...that way all communication from this point forward is in writing.
We will see what happens.