Hot Bench Season 4 Episode 3 Judge Acker Shares the Name of Her Wig!; Lemon Deal of the Century?!

In season 4 episode 3 of Hot Bench, viewers are introduced to Judge Acker, who shares the same name as her wig. The judges preside over the case of a man who sold a lemon of a car to his ex-girlfriend. The plaintiff claims that the car broke down shortly after she purchased it and that the defendant refused to help pay for repairs. The defendant argues that the car was sold as-is and that he is not responsible for any damages.

As the case unfolds, Judge Acker asks the plaintiff why she continued to drive the car even though it was exhibiting signs of mechanical problems. The plaintiff responds that she needed the car to get to work and didn't have the money to pay for repairs. Judge Acker then questions the defendant about why he didn't disclose the car's issues when he sold it to the plaintiff. The defendant claims that he wasn't aware of any problems with the car at the time of sale.

Throughout the trial, the judges grapple with the issue of whether the defendant is responsible for the car's mechanical problems. Judge Corriero argues that the defendant deceived the plaintiff by selling her a car that was not fit for use, while Judge DiMango maintains that the plaintiff should have been aware of the car's issues when she bought it. Eventually, the judges come to a decision about who is responsible for the cost of repairs.

In the second case, the judges hear arguments about a group of friends who sold a building for a fraction of its value. The plaintiff, who is a real estate broker, claims that the defendants took advantage of her by selling her the building at a steeply discounted price without disclosing that they had received higher offers. The defendants counter that the plaintiff was aware of the other offers and that she agreed to purchase the building at the agreed-upon price.

As the trial progresses, the judges probe into the relationship between the plaintiff and defendants. Judge DiMango questions why the plaintiff would agree to purchase the building at a much lower price than its estimated value. The plaintiff responds that she believed the transaction was a good deal and that she was acting in good faith. Judge Acker then asks the defendants why they accepted the plaintiff's offer despite receiving other, higher offers. The defendants argue that they wanted to sell the building quickly and that the plaintiff's offer was the best one available.

Throughout the episode, the judges demonstrate their expertise in legal matters and their ability to dissect complex arguments. Their questioning and deliberation provide insights into how judges think and approach legal proceedings. Whether it's debating the responsibility of a car seller or weighing the merits of a real estate transaction, the judges on Hot Bench season 4 episode 3 prove that their opinions are informed and insightful.