Filing # 71114577 E-Filed 04/23/2018 04:46:34 PM IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE ELEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA JULNOR JEAN, individually, Plaintiff, v. Case No.: GROUP SOLAR USA LLC, a Delaware For Profit Corporation, Defendant. ______________________________________/ COMPLAINT Plaintiff JULNOR JEAN sues Defendant GROUP SOLAR USA, LLC. and states: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 26.012 and § 86.011. 2. Venue is appropriate in Miami-Dade County pursuant to Fla. Stat. § 47.011 as the Plaintiff is a resident of, and his home is located in, Miami-Dade County and Defendant, at all relevant times, did business in Miami-Dade County. 3. The amount in controversy is more than $15,000.00, exclusive of attorney’s fees, interest, and costs. PARTIES 4. Plaintiff is an 81-year-old Haitian immigrant living off a fixed Social Security income who resides in a single-family residence he owns in Miami Shores. This matter was referred to the undersigned law firm through the Dade Legal Aid “Put Something Back” program. 5. Defendant is a for-profit solar energy distributor incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware. 1 FACTS GIVING RISE TO PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM I. Defendant’s Sales Pitch: 6. In March of 2016 Bar Bitton ( “Defendant’s Sales Agent”) was in the Miami Shores residential neighborhood going door-to-door giving unsolicited sales pitches to homeowners about the benefits of purchasing a home solar energy system from Defendant. 7. During his sales presentation Defendant’s Sales Agent told Plaintiff that: (i) if he purchased a home solar system he will “never have to pay for electricity again” as his monthly Florida Power & Light (“FPL”) electricity bill would be reduced to zero-dollars; (ii) the system would have the capacity to produce more energy than his home would need, (iii) the excess energy his home solar system produced could be sold to FPL, for Mr. Jean’s profit, (iv) Plaintiff would receive a one-time $6,000 rebate payment, and (v) the installation of the solar system would increase the value of his home. 8. Defendant’s website, http://groupsolarusa.com, contains an animated sales video that makes the same representations as made by Defendant’s Sales Agent to Plaintiff. Including, the prospect of a zero-dollar electric bill: 2 Profits from the sale of excess energy back to the energy grid: And an increase in the value of a home by as much as 37%: II. Costs and the Ygrene Energy Fund, Inc. PACE Loan: 9. Defendant’s Sales Agent explained to the Plaintiff that he could purchase a $19,990 solar system from Defendant by borrowing, with no money down, 100% of the cost from Ygrene Energy Fund Florida, LLC (“Ygrene”) for “Property Assessed Clean Energy” (hereinafter “PACE”) amortized over twenty years for a $186.98 monthly payment. 10. PACE loans are home-improvement loans that finance environmental upgrades to residential properties, including solar panels. Unlike traditional loans, PACE loans do not involve a straightforward extension of credit from a lender, who then receives periodic repayments directly 3 from the borrower. Instead, PACE loans are created as tax liens on the given property; homeowners repay the loan as a special tax assessment collected by the Miami-Dade County. PACE loans reflect a partnership between state or local governments, on the one hand, and private finance companies, like Ygrene, on the other. The government creates a special tax-assessment district in which PACE loans will be made. 11. Plaintiff resides in one of those special tax districts and agreed to a special assessment to purchase and install Defendant’s solar system that is repaid through an annual assessment on his real estate tax bill. 12. On March 1, 2016, Plaintiff and Defendant executed the document entitled “Residential Solar Photovoltaic Systems Application” attached as Exhibit “A”. 13. On March 2, 2016, Defendant’s Sales Agent also produced and requested Plaintiff to sign the Miami-Dade “Green Corridor” PACE district “Summary Memorandum of Agreement” approving the special assessment. See Exhibit “B”. 14. The total special assessment (including fees and interest) is $21,611.14 for Plaintiff to pay for the home solar system purchased from Defendant and installed at his home. See Ygrene “Final Closing Statement” at Exhibit “C”. 15. In April 2016, Defendant’s Sales Agent produced the Miami-Dade “Green Corridor” PACE District document “Addendum to Financing Agreement” for Plaintiff to sign. See Exhibit “D”. 16. Plaintiff never met or spoke to any employee or agent from Ygrene or Miami-Dade County. All application documents related to those entities were arranged to be provided to Plaintiff by the Defendant, Group Solar USA’s Sales Agent, Bar Bitton. 4 III. Rebates and Misunderstanding: 17. In addition to the above described promises, Defendant’s Sales Agent further informed Plaintiff that after the solar system was installed Defendant would issue Plaintiff a onetime $6,000 rebate payment. After months of Plaintiff demanding that the rebate payment be made, Defendant eventually paid Plaintiff $2,500. 18. Defendant now maintains that Plaintiff misunderstood the rebate offer, and that the $6,000 amount was a reference to tax incentives for renewable energy that it believed Plaintiff would receive. Plaintiff does not earn enough income to necessitate filing a federal tax return and is not eligible for any tax benefits. Defendant claims that it paid Plaintiff $2,500 because it felt sorry that Plaintiff did not understand the terms of the transaction. 19. There was no meeting of the minds between the parties as it related to a recoverable $6,000 rebate, federal tax incentive program eligibility, and there was a fundamental misunderstanding as to the terms of the deal. 20. Adding to the complexity of this contract negotiation and execution is that fact that Plaintiff was almost entirely blind at the time due to cataracts in both of his eyes and he was unable to read the documents. Plaintiff relied exclusively on Defendant’s Sales Agent’s explanations and representations as to the contract’s contents and terms and the system’s capacity and performance. Furthermore, the sales presentation by Defendant’s Sales Agent was made in English, Plaintiff’s second language. III. The Contract, Kilowatts and the Missing Essential Terms: 21. The document Plaintiff executed to purchase the home solar system from Defendant is entitled “Residential Solar Photovoltaic System Application”. See Exhibit “A”. 22. The document lists the price of $19,990, with a $0 down payment, to be financed 5 by Ygrene with an estimated monthly payment of $186.98, for 240 monthly payments and a completion date for installation of April 1, 2016. 23. The space on the contract to enter the number of solar panels Plaintiff was purchasing for $19,990 is left blank. 24. As would become clear to Plaintiff later, the amount of energy the solar system produces, and therefore the available reductions on a monthly FPL utilities bill, is directly related to the number of solar panels installed. The contract omitted this essential term. 25. What is listed on the contract is “2.70KW”, handwritten by Defendant’s Sales Agent on a space provided under “Description of Significant Equipment”. Defendant’s Sales Agent gave Plaintiff no specific information as to what “2.70KW” meant exactly, only that the solar system, once installed, would power his home, reduce his monthly FPL bill to zero-dollars, raise the value of his home, and turn a profit for the Plaintiff. 26. Defendant’s Sales Agent’s specific inducements were that each home appliance would be powered by its own solar panel ensuring that the system covered Plaintiff’s home energy usage. 27. Florida, due to the hot weather, is a high usage energy state. The average home solar system for a single-family home is 10 kilowatts (“KW”). In lower usage states, a typical single family home solar system is 5KW. 28. Based on Defendant’s Sales Agent’s representations and inducements related to the system’s performance, a 2.70KW system makes it impossible to provide sufficient energy to live up to the representations and inducements made by Defendant. 29. Defendant charged Plaintiff $19,990 for a very small and weak home solar system. 30. SunEdison Brand 270w solar panels, the type of solar panel listed in the contract, 6 are advertised online for a mere $315 per panel. A 10-panel system can be purchased for about $3,000. 31. Based on solar system price comparison data available online, the average price in Florida for a 6KW system is roughly $10,000. For a 10KW solar system in Florida the average price is between $15,000 to $19,000, after application of the federal tax rebate program which Plaintiff is not eligible for. 32. Defendant charged Plaintiff $19,990 for a 2.70KW system consisting of an unknown number of solar panels. Plaintiff was induced to enter this contract due to the myriad misrepresentations about the impossible benefits and production levels of the system that was ultimately installed. IV. The Reality of the Home Solar System Installed by Defendant: 33. The solar system sold and installed by Defendant is falling woefully short of producing the amount of solar energy necessary to reduce Plaintiff’s electric bills. In fact, over two years into Plaintiff’s home solar panel experience and Plaintiff’s monthly FPL bill is routinely higher than it has ever been. Plaintiff’s home has not increased in value due to installation of the solar system. 34. FPL notified Plaintiff that to produce enough solar power to result in the promised zero-dollar monthly FPL utilities bill for a single-family home it would require a home solar system to create approximately 1600 kwh in the summer and 800 kwh in the winter. The solar system as installed comes nowhere near producing that much solar energy. 35. Plaintiff, whose income is his $781 monthly Social Security check, is now obligated to pay the $186.98 monthly loan payment in addition to a monthly FPL bill that is now routinely higher than it had been before the installation of the system. 7 36. In the intervening time before contacting an attorney, Plaintiff unsuccessfully attempted to persuade Defendant to correct the issues with his solar system. 37. Defendant has shut down its Florida operation and moved to Bronx, New York. 38. Defendant was never registered with Florida Division of Corporations or authorized to do business in the State of Florida. 39. Plaintiff, in August of 2017, at wits’ end, travelled to the Dade Legal Aid office to request legal assistance. The matter was referred to the undersigned law firm through the Dade Legal Aid “Put Something Back” program. 40. With the assistance of the undersigned attorneys, Plaintiff has spent several months attempting work with the Defendant in the hopes Group Solar USA would take the necessary measures to fix Plaintiff’s solar system to produce the promised zero-dollar monthly FPL bill. 41. Defendant has refused to add additional solar panels to increase solar output or, alternatively, to remove and retake possession of the solar system, rescinded the contract, and refund the loan payments made during the time the solar system has been underperforming. 42. Although Plaintiff’s energy usage has moderately increased due to the repair of his air conditioning unit, the system’s capacity is not sufficient to provide needed energy to his home. The trees on the Plaintiff’s property, that were there when Defendant installed the solar system on the roof, have been trimmed to provide more exposure to sunlight but have not improved the energy output. 43. As a result of the above mentioned facts, the agreement in the documents set out in Exhibits “A”, “B”, “C’ and “D” between Plaintiff and Defendant were never formed because, among other things, (i) the contract is missing a material and essential term as the number of SunEdison Brand 270W monocrystalline solar panels to be purchased was left blank, (ii) there 8 were multiple misunderstandings between the parties, including misunderstandings related to the $6,000 rebate payment, and Plaintiff’s eligibility for tax incentive programs, (iii) there was no meeting of the minds, and, (iv) it was impossible for the system as installed to live up to the representations, warranties and inducements made by Defendant’s Sales Agent due to its small size and low solar output. COUNT ONE Petition for Declaratory Judgment 44. Plaintiff reasserts and incorporates herein by reference the averments set forth in paragraphs 1 through 43 above. 45. Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to Chapter 86, Florida Statutes and seeks a declaratory judgment in order resolve his doubt and uncertainty as to the legal significance, if any, of the documents attached hereto as Exhibits “A”, “B”, “C” and “D”. 46. Section 86.011 Florida Statutes expressly provides this Court with jurisdiction and the power, at section 86.021 “…to declare rights, status and other equitable or legal relations.” 47. Chapter 86 is to be liberally construed so as to afford parties relief from insecurity and uncertainty with respect to their rights and status. 48. Plaintiff is in doubt as to whether he is bound by any of the duties, obligations, or conditions set forth in the documents attached as Exhibits “A”, “B”, “C” and “D”. 49. Plaintiff seeks an order of this Court declaring that the agreement in the form set out in Exhibits “A”, “B”, “C” and “D” between Plaintiff and Defendant was never formed, and therefore have no legal effect. 50. Plaintiff is entitled to declaratory relief pursuant to Chapter 86, Florida Statutes, as: a. a good faith dispute exists between Plaintiff and Defendant regarding the validity of the documents attached hereto; 9 b. Plaintiff presently have a justiciable question concerning his rights and/or status under the application he was induced by Defendant to sign attached as Exhibits “A”, “B”, “C” and “D”. c. Plaintiff is in doubt regarding his rights to certain legal and equitable relief for; and d. Plaintiff has an actual, present and practical need for a determination and declaration of his legal and equitable rights pursuant to the application attached as Exhibits “A”, “B”, “C” and “D”. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff hereby seeks a Declaratory Judgment finding that parties are not bound by the documents set out in Exhibits “A”, “B”, “C” and “D” because of fundamental misunderstandings between the parties as to the (i) terms of the transaction being entered, (ii) omission of material terms, (iii) Plaintiff’s ineligibility for certain tax incentive programs, and (iv) impossibility of performance due to the small size and low solar output of the solar system installed. COUNT TWO Contract Rescission 51. Plaintiff reasserts and incorporate herein by reference the averments set forth in paragraphs 1 through 43 above. 52. This is an action for rescission of the documents attached at Exhibits “A”, “B”, “C” and “D”. 53. The agreement reached between the parties should be rescinded because Plaintiff was misled by Defendant’s Sales Agent as to the nature of the deal he was entering. 54. Defendant’s Sales Agent made a series of misrepresentations and inducements related to the capacity and benefits of the home solar system including (i) if Plaintiff purchased a home solar system he will “never have to pay for electricity again” as his monthly Florida Power 10 & Light (“FPL”) electricity bill would be reduced to zero-dollars; (ii) the system would have the capacity to produce more energy than his home would need, (iii) the excess energy his home solar system produced could be sold to FPL, for Plaintiff’s profit, (iv) Plaintiff would receive a one-time $6,000 rebate payment, and (v) the installation of the solar system would increase the value of his home. 55. The home solar system actually installed results in impossibility of performance on the above material representations due to the systems inability to produce the amount of solar energy needed to live up to the inducements made by Defendant’s Sales Agent. 56. Defendant knew the system as installed would not produce the promised results and such false representations caused Plaintiff’s reasonable inducement, and the installation of the system that could not produce the promised solar outputs created impossibility of performance. 57. Other grounds for rescission and cancellation of the contract and resulting loan deal include mutual mistake as to Plaintiff’s availability for federal tax incentive programs for solar power and misunderstanding as to the offer of a $6,000 rebate payment to be made from the Defendant to the Plaintiff. 58. The contract also left blank the number of solar panels Plaintiff was purchasing from the Defendant for the loan amount, which is an essential and material term in the contract. 59. Plaintiff’s lack of eyesight and limited English further attributed to the resulting fundamental misunderstandings. 60. There was no meeting of the minds as to the terms of the agreement. 61. Thus, Plaintiff is seeking rescission, and has rescinded the contract and notified the Defendant of such rescission. 62. To the extent Plaintiff has received any benefits from the contract, Plaintiff offers 11 to restore these benefits to Defendant, including returning the solar system and all equipment installed at Plaintiff’s home. 63. Plaintiff has no adequate remedy at law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, hereby requests an order rescinding the documents attached hereto as Exhibits “A”, “B”, “C” and “D” finding that no valid enforceable contract or agreement exists between the parties, and award such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and fair. COUNT THREE Fraud in the Inducement 64. Plaintiff reassert and incorporate herein by reference the averments set forth in paragraphs 1 through 43 above. 65. Defendant’s Sales Agent made false statements concerning material facts including representing to Plaintiff that: (i) if he purchased a home solar system he will “never have to pay for electricity again” as his monthly Florida Power & Light (“FPL”) electricity bill would be reduced to zero-dollars; (ii) the system would have the capacity to produce more energy than his home would need, (iii) the excess energy his home solar system produced could be sold to FPL, for Plaintiff’s profit, (iv) Plaintiff would receive a one-time $6,000 rebate payment, and (v) the installation of the solar system would increase the value of his home. 66. Given the size and low solar output of the system installed, Defendant had knowledge that the above representations were false. 67. Defendant intended for the sales representations to induce Plaintiff to enter the home solar system contract and take out the Ygrene loan. 68. But for the misrepresentations made by the Defendant, Plaintiff would not have entered the deal to purchase the home solar system as reflected in documents attached as Exhibits 12 “A”, “B”, “C” and “D”. 69. Plaintiff reasonably relied on the Defendant’s false representations, and as a direct and proximate result of the Defendant’s misrepresentations was induced to take out the Ygrene loan, secured by the Miami-Dade “Green Corridor” special assessment, in order to purchase the solar system and has sustained actual damages. 70. Finally, Defendant’s conduct showed reckless indifference to the rights of others as to be equivalent to an intentional violation of those rights. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, hereby demands judgement against Defendant for compensatory damages and for the reasonable costs of this action, and further demands a jury trial as of right on all issues so triable and such other and further relief as is necessary, appropriate, just, or proper. COUNT FOUR Claim for Damages Under Chapter 501, Florida’s “Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices” Act 71. Plaintiff reasserts and incorporates herein by reference the averments set forth in paragraphs 1 through 43 above. 72. This is an action for violation of, Chapter 501, Florida Statutes, Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUTPA). At all times material hereto, this Act provides that unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are declared unlawful. Fla. Stat. 501.204(1). 73. At all times material hereto, Defendant “baited” Plaintiffs to sign up for a Ygrene loan to pay for the installation of a home solar system by making myriad representations about the performance and financial benefits of owning such a system and then “switching” the deal Plaintiff thought he was entering into by installing a system that did not deliver on any of the inducing 13 representations. 74. Defendant’s Sales Agent made false statements concerning material facts including representing to Plaintiff that: (i) if he purchased a home solar system he will “never have to pay for electricity again” as his monthly Florida Power & Light (“FPL”) electricity bill would be reduced to zero-dollars; (ii) the system would have the capacity to produce more energy than his home would need, (iii) the excess energy his home solar system produced could be sold to FPL, for Plaintiff’s profit, (iv) Plaintiff would receive a one-time $6,000 rebate payment, and (v) the installation of the solar system would increase the value of his home. 75. Based on the above misrepresentations Plaintiff was induced to acquire a home solar system and to agree to a special assessment securing a Ygrene loan for more than $21,000 to pay for the system. 76. Defendant induced Plaintiff to sign a document that left an essential term blank, i.e. the number of solar panels being purchased. 77. Defendant failed to accurately explain the contract to Plaintiff given his poor eyesight and limited English, as well as Defendant’s misrepresentations and concealment of facts, all constitute unfair or deceptive acts or practices within the meaning of Florida. Stat. 501.204(1) and constitute violations of FDUTPA. Such violations resulted in Plaintiff being induced to execute the applications document attached as Exhibits “A”, “B”, “C” and “D”. 78. Section 501.211(2) Florida Statutes provides that a consumer who has suffered a loss because of a violation of FDUTPA may recover actual damages plus attorney’s fees and costs. 79. Plaintiff is a consumer who has suffered a loss because of Defendant’s violations of FDUTPA and are persons whose interests this statute is designed to protect. 80. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant violations of FDUTPA, Plaintiff has 14 sustained compensatory damages and has also had to hire an attorney for the vindication of his rights. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, hereby demands judgement against Defendant for compensatory damages, reasonable attorney’s fees and costs; and further demands a jury trial as of right on all issues so triable and such other and further relief as is necessary, appropriate, just, or proper. COUNT FIVE Unjust Enrichment 81. Plaintiff reasserts and incorporates herein by reference the averments set forth in paragraphs 1 through 43 above. 82. This is an action for Unjust Enrichment. 83. Ygrene loan proceeds were paid to Defendant for the solar system acquired by Plaintiff. 84. Defendant’s acceptance and retention of the monetary benefit for the installation of the flawed solar system at Plaintiff’s home is unjust. 85. Plaintiff is seeking for both parties to be returned to the positions which they occupied prior to the parties’ transaction and Defendant has been unjustly enriched by the retention of benefits which it should not be entitled. 86. Plaintiff lacks an adequate remedy at law. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, hereby demands judgement against Defendant for unjust enrichment, and for this Court to order the return to the Plaintiff of all sums of money paid under the contracts, for Defendant to retake possession of the solar system equipment installed at Plaintiff’s home, and otherwise return Plaintiff to the position he was in prior to entering into the transaction, and such other and further relief as is necessary, appropriate, just, or proper. 15 JURY DEMAND Plaintiff demands trial by jury on all issues that can be heard by a jury. Respectfully submitted, Richard Bennett Florida Bar No.150627 richardbennett27@gmail.com Peter Bennett Florida Bar No. 68219 peterbennettlaw@gmail.com Bennett & Bennett 1200 Anastasia Ave., Office 360 Coral Gables, Florida 33134 Tel: (305) 444-5925 By: s/ Peter Bennett Peter Bennett 16 . EXHIBIT A RESIDENTIAL SOLAR -TAIC SYSTEM APPLICATION This Sales and Installation Agreement (Agreement) made and entered into on 3 '4 6 ,is the agreement between Group Solar U. S. A. (GSU) located at 3001 Cedora Terrace. Sebrind FL 33.870 And residing at h\n/ 444% i Ska he 9 . (PURCHASER) for the sales, design and'i'nstallation of a Solar Photovoltaic System (SP8) as described herein. Purchaser Name: . 31A)hop\ .. I Installation Site Address (ISA): hilt? Mil?la 15 {st/II: 3 it!) i703. Pi. 33753 Purchaser Phone Number: 3 a - Ujl ?2'3 '2 {3930 Number/Amount" - - Description of Signi?cantgquipment Meter No. For Site: 0-3750} ?10 - I A turnkey grid connected SOlar Photovoltaic System consisting cf: SunEdison Brand 270 .10 kW solar paneis; Invader; Racking, Flashing AC Disconnect switch and all hardware .. I and labor necessary for the installation of?the Solar Photovoltaic System. Years Manufacturer Warranty from SunEdison covering the solar panels (modules). Twenty Five (25) Years Energy covering the imierlers. Twenty Five (25) Years Manufacturer warranty-from SunEdison coveringtheSPS. Approximate me Line I Price: 10 . Start.- Date: /4 Completion'elahte: //lK Down Pavment State ?Eicenser (Numbers of Payment: 2. 0 3 l-a?m "Name: Date: YOU THIS AGREEMENT IF NOT APPROVED ATINO CGST AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT 0F CONSTRUCTION ON YOUR HOME I: iiS?dope of the Work. GSU will survey the. ISA. and. desigIrIan appropriate SPS. GSU 'will obtain all permits necessary for thennstailation df the SES. and install the. SP3 system as per the terms of this. Agreement" I. . 1, Binding Effect: Tire binding effect of this Agreemeiit :3 subject to . execution by an authorized of?cer of GSU If Purchaser Is not approved by the Clean ram and/or if. tlIc.,permitS are not 'approvcd5- the application will be withdrawn- Without any penalties. 2. Equipment: GSU agrees to sell and Purchaser agrees to purchase the equipment from GSU, at the sale price set forth on page one (I) of tins document and subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The equipment can be altered upon agreement by the parties, and, If necessaryias determined by or upon inability to obtain the- speci?c brand of equipment Iistg?d. 3. Payment and Rebates. The total sale price is payable as of this Agreement. a. Rebate and incentive calculations provided by GSU are estimates based on assumptionS?that may not be applicable based on the circumstances speci?c to the Purchaser?s SPS project. b. Actual rebates and incentives are variable as eligibility requirements GSU will use good faith reasonable efforts to help Purchaser secure applicable rebates and incentives but GSU shall have no ?nancial obligation to Purchaser regarding actual rebate and incentive amounts received. c. GSU Is not responsible .for delays In work due to the actions of any permitting or regulatory agencies or their employees. d- PUFFii?e?iQfShail 13.6 responsible for any taxes now or herea?er imposed. 4. Shipment: Once GSU has obtained all approvals and pennitsl'necessaur to commence installation and the Equipment is ready to be shipped, GSU shall advise Purchaserof estimated date of Equipment arrival. GSU may store the Equipment at - Purchaser?s Installation site. obligations, as described in this Agreement, - may be subject to delays incident to labor dif?culties, ?res, casualties and accidents; acts of G-D, acts of war or the public ciierriy; traIISpo'rtation di?iculties; governmental interference or regulations; inability t9 dbtain equipment, material or quali?ed labor suf?cient to ?ll its orderS" In a timely manner; and other causes beyond control. All such incidents will be considered Force Majeure events. 5. Applications. Approvals, Credits and Grants: GSU will complete all forms required for the approval of Purchaser?s SREC Registration Program (SRP), Utility Inter-connection. Purchaser must submit all information required for completion of these forms In a timely manner so as not to chug? unnecessary delays. 6. Installation. at. Purchaser Is reSponsible for providing a safe work environment and timely access to IItlIe areas upon which ?the SPS .13 to be installed. I . b. In the event: that GSU in its sole discretion, determines that the 11913:? amenable to the installation of the SPS, GSU may terminate this Agreement. c. Purchaser agrees to provide at no charge storage of and access to the SPS equipmentgg- . II. 7. Property Purchaser Is responsible for the structural integrity of the location where. .ithe SP8 :3 installed. GSU Is not responsible or liable for any known or. unlmowr:pr cperty.- conditions, including damage to old, deteriorated or Cutler-lug o?r supports, siding, exterior or any other non-visible conditionsrat the installation site. GSU Is not :an'd: hearsrno ctronrng of. existing electrical equipment at-thee Purchaserispmperty,mcludin gibuuribuhmited to the main electrical service panel, any. major electricalrdevices, or ?ises or} similar devices. TItleIILIRIskuof Loss GSU- warrants thateupon completion of the SPS Insiallation, thee: and cleartitie: ?to the: Equipment. shall pass to Purchaser. 9. ADDITIONAL MAY CANCEL THIS AGREEMENT AT ANY TIME COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION ON YOUR HOME. 10. Remedies Upon Purchaser?s Breach: Without limiting any of other rights and remedies upon breach-.byPIIrchaser; GSU shall have the right to: 3urchaser initials: OF RIGHT TO CANCEL - 314,422-; remove any project materials or equipment and to be reimbursed for all costs I. I.incurred by GSU. I 1.- --Group- Solar USA Insurance: PC5224455 ?12. MediasPurchaser grants GSU the right to publicly use, display, share or advertise photographic imagcsandproject details and any other information related to Purchaser?s SPS, unless Purchaser objects to same in writing. 13. DisputeResoluIion: All disputes arising out-'of or relating-to this Agreement shall be resolved by binding Arbitration' In accordandc witlr?the rules of the American Arbitration Association Arbitrators shall be selected apd agreed? to both parties, provided that if-the parties cannot agree upon the selection of the the rules .with respect to selection ofarbitrators shall govern. .. . LThe costs of alibitration are to be divided equally by the parties except that each party Is to bear; itsxiwn expenses for its witnesses, evidence and attorneys. The decision of the arbitratof?shall be ?nal and binding and enforceable' In any court of competentjurisdiction. Arbitration replaces the right to go to court, including the right to a jury and the right to participate in a class action or similar proceeding. arbitration, a dispute' Is resolved- by an arbitrator instead of a judge or Jury We agr?e. that. anyIdispiIte that arises. between GSU and Purchaser shall be resolved exclusively by arbitration. l4. Warranties: . . a. LIMITED WARRANTY The SP3 is warrantied under the terms as set forth in this agreement and there 'are no other representations or warranties, express or implied, as to the merchantability, fitness for any purpose, condition, design, capacity, suitability or performance of the project or its installation. ii.- GSU has no responsibility with manufacturer warranties other than to transfer!" them to purchaser. GSU warrants the installation of the SPS against defects in workmanship duringItlrcI-?rst- 5-years-This warranty does not cover any force majeure events, damage normally covered by homeowners insurance, power outages, normal wear and tear of the roof, roof Shingle failure, sub- structure failure siding or electrical system failure. GSU speci?cally disclaims any guaranteed output of the SPS, including any claims made orally or in writing by GSU, its agents or subcontractors. b. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY i. GSU and Purchaser agree there are no consequential damages Each party?s liability to the other under this agreement shall be limited to direct, actual damages only. GSU and Purchaser agree that In no event shall either party be liable to the other for consequential, incidental, punitive; exemplary, special or indirect damages. ii. . Actual. Damages. Actual hahrlrigrfm damages by either GSU will not exceed 000: 000: IIdanrages to purchaser?s home or property during the iriStalla?oIi or? the project or resulting from the prefect. No Express or" Implied Warranties. Except as expressed In the other parts of this. agreement; disclaims and. Purchaser waives all express or implied warranties including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability and fitness'for apartrcularhpurpose GSU will not be, liablero purchaser under this warranty if an alleged defectrin or equipment was caused bgrpurchaser or any third person not responsible] misuse, neglect, unauthorized attem tsrto; re air r: .orIaIIy other cause beyond the range omitended 2? use, or by accident,- ?re, lightening or other- hazardg 15. Indemni?cation: Purchaser shall indemnify and'ho?ld?GSU and . af?liates harmless from and against any? and. all expensies and damages arising- out of or incident to willful or negligent'acts onomissions of the Purchaser. 6. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains the entirequlderstanding of the parties with to the subject matter contained herein and supersedes all negotiations, prior discussions and preliminary agreements made prior to this dated Agreement. Any modi?cations, changes or amendments shall be made in writing and signed by an authorized representative of both parties. This agreement shall be deemed to have been made and shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State oflersey without giving effect to the con?ict of laws I?principle HAVE TIIE RIGHT TO CANCEL THIS AGREEMENT AT ANY TIME PRIGR To MIDNIGHT or THE THIRD BUSINESS DAYS AFTER YOU SIGN HIS AGREEMENT CANCELATION SHOULD BE COMMUNICATED IN WRITING OR EMAIL To GROUP SOLAR USA TO 3001 CEDORA TERRACE EBRING FL 33870. EXHIBIT CFN: 20160168887 BOOK 30006 PAGE 4189 02:53:59 PM HARVEY RUVIN. CLERK OF COURT, CTY . GREEN . . mm MID. PEEPW a? WM TO: me mmwma -M mama summv mmommum 0324;212:315" "W)mdi?d?nim Wali?wm?IKImW?? WEMM Tb! Wand? WNW and ?kaws-wamm (m??WHaud . a: mans. ul- WHE- 1: 10810? Mama. 2: Mar Ham's: 136.43. 1m max-m: ?Quail! mun 314133-0014?? 31531111131181" m; FL m: was 1?2114145-11; momma-.2 CFN: 20180188887 BOOK 30008 PAGE 4190 . 13158081911000? cam AND 9" FMNW at .. .1 . "$211143? mm mm mm mum-mm W. 31' (mm-911mm} g3 ?an?m?HWAG?m 11211411512 Wu!" 1 Wit-W CFN: 20160168887 BOOK 30006 PAGE 4191 PROPERTY OWNER i CJWNER ND. 2 OWNER ND. '3 PRGPE QTY OWNER NC). I. ?12114115 I 3 CFN: 20160168887 BOOK 30006 PAGE 4192 wwagreneWorksaorn GREEN GORRIPON ASSESSMENT PLEASE 3mm 'wua Hams-mam? As mpmven THE maw. mwum ma me 11? You AREA mum/6%, PLEASE wannabe mm mm mm: Jam: 14. Smith, mm?: mm wsm'ma 1.5; 1 . "nun-mum? ?anon-nuns: uununu?uainnHum-w-uun-mun: Aw Mu? nu Ham. a! sum: PM - NEDJREWOR SUMMARY ammammwm 1 3321141151 4 ?5.60.23 CFN: 20100168887 BOOK 30006 PAGE 4193 EXHIEITA 1331?s 935.1% 3.01923 3 1.07325 max 1w QR 1m171294 1 1mm BESGRW SBMW u?i?i? '5 g? ngrene (hi-HM I CFN: 20160168887 BOOK 30006 PAGE 4194 mopenw mums; NOTARY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT WW 1} 3. .. mamaf?h my MMFW LSs FFO 16>;qu 00W NURSE k-v 1m a- m: Flu-M22? CFN: 20160168887 BOOK 80006 PAGE 4195 DISTRICT NOTARY ACKNOWLEWEM EMT 61'6me mum-a: .5 Md. . . (EMAU (Mm. - 4969mm - . . .. m? .. . ?amymie. mummw . Wrumza 201$? 4F ?6 22198? ?93 i" 8513mm mmamnua WMEHEHT [32114115 I: 7 a EXHIBIT 1, I . REEL-.7 L5: gaming Green Corridor . Final Closing Statement PROJECT DETAILS ID: . STATEMENT DATE: DISTRICT: Green Corridor- FUNDING DATE: 0412212015 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 375 NW 11 1TH ST MIAMI SHORES, FL 33168 APN: '1 1?2136~001~0760 OWNER NAMEIS): julnDr jean TRUST: LEGAL ENTITY: I FINANCING SUMMARY PAYMENT 1: $19,990.00 APPLIOATION FEE: PAYMENT 2: PROCESSING UNDERWRITING FEE: $125.00 PAYMENT a; JURISDICTION COST RECOVERY FEE: $125.00 TOTAL PAYMENTS $19,990.00 RECORDING DISBURSEMENT FEE: $1 00.00 TITLE 0 ESCROW FEE: $65.ENERGY AUDIT FEE: FEE: DRIETNATION FEE: 6:90:00 - BOND TRUSTEE FEE: $90.00 TOTAL PROGRAM FEES $505.00 $11.1 10:14 CAPITALIZED INTEREST: TOTAL JNTEHEST $1,116.14 TOTAL SPECIAL TAX INTEREST RATE: 7.320% TERM (years): 20 TOTAL PAYMENTS: $19,999.00 TOTAL PROGRAM FEES: $505.00 TOTAL FEES: . $0.00 YDDR FIRST-PAYMENT WILL BE. TOTAL INTEREST: $1.11 6.14 12,3112016 PERIOD AFTER THIS DATE: I I I I - $21,611.14 Final Closing Statement I 375 NW111TH ST PROJECT ID: MIAMI SHORES. FL 33163 04120I2016 EXHIBIT CFN: 20160256495 BOOK 30059 PAGE 4296 08:55:37 AM HARVEY RUVIN, CLERK OF COURT, CTY GREEN ADDENDUMTO FINANGINQ AGREEMERT .. . 4196 -muo.1: Whigs: mmu 7 111M: Raw "mas-comm 1&me i Fl. 33186 mmwmusmw WM Wm mammal ?mmaawm ,Wm u?mm Wot WW mm mm mm:mm,m mm 130an ?mm 9334444444!?th MWW 4mm 14m ram: CFN: 20160256495 BOOK 30059 PAGE 4297 GREEN 001131901! MEAN 91313163 Wands-1mm Wm. MWMWOR 44 22212022222102 1. 2mm 22mm .. Hem Pm state oI-Hmm "ir- 66mm Exms?ov 24.2915 30mm: 2 as 22128: - 2. at; pk.? - -- 2212/5223- g- .W, msmbistom ?222222222222? - 12520222222222 CFN: 20160256495 BOOK 30059 PAGE 4298 EXHIBIT A. NEW Minna-amass am Fa annoEXHIBIT 8 FINAL OF. ENTS Instalm?an af new reef .Insta?lla?en a? High Impact Windawe. Insta?a?an ef High Impaci {Deere .insta?a?en af new WAG system. EjNew Mailman Elasta?a?an of Safer Panels .Insta?a?en of 8013: Water Heater Dom .. A . 5 Maw .. more tuna-mm