The People's Court Season 21 Episode 15 If You Cook for Me, I'll Get You a Cell Phone

The People's Court season 21 episode 15, titled "If You Cook for Me, I'll Get You a Cell Phone," follows a dispute between roommates regarding the terms of their living arrangement. The plaintiff claims that she frequently cooks meals for the defendant, in exchange for promises of a new cell phone that the defendant has failed to deliver. The defendant counters that he never agreed to purchase a cell phone for the plaintiff, and that any cooking she did was simply out of kindness.

The episode begins with Judge Milian hearing both sides of the case. The plaintiff argues that the defendant repeatedly made promises to buy her a new cell phone if she cooked for him. She claims that she has prepared numerous meals for him over the course of several weeks, but that he has yet to fulfill his end of the bargain. She testifies that she has text messages from the defendant in which he acknowledges the agreement. The defendant denies ever agreeing to purchase a cell phone for the plaintiff, and states that any meals she prepared were done as a favor.

Judge Milian questions both parties, probing for details about the agreement and the circumstances surrounding the alleged promises. The plaintiff provides copies of the text messages, and the defendant is forced to acknowledge that he did use the words "I'll buy you a cell phone" in one of them. However, he maintains that he never meant the statement as a binding agreement, and that it was simply a casual remark.

The judge then turns her attention to the issue of the meals. The plaintiff argues that she cooked for the defendant in expectation of receiving the cell phone, and that she would not have done so otherwise. The defendant argues that the meals were not part of a transaction, and that he never asked the plaintiff to cook for him. He suggests that she did so simply because she enjoyed cooking.

As the case progresses, Judge Milian becomes increasingly frustrated with both parties. She scolds the plaintiff for expecting the defendant to fulfill promises that were not clearly laid out in a contract. She also berates the defendant for making promises that he did not intend to keep. She notes that both parties are responsible for creating a situation in which there is no clear resolution.

In the end, Judge Milian rules in favor of the defendant, stating that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient evidence that there was a binding agreement for the purchase of a cell phone. However, she also admonishes the defendant for leading the plaintiff on and creating false expectations. She advises both parties to communicate more clearly in the future, and to avoid making promises that they are not certain they can keep.

The episode ends with Judge Milian reflecting on the case and the larger issue of agreements between friends and roommates. She encourages viewers to avoid making verbal agreements that are not clearly defined, and to avoid acting out of a sense of obligation. She emphasizes the importance of communication and mutual understanding in any type of relationship, whether it be romantic or platonic.