Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The man who sued his dry-cleaner for $65,465,500
- Thread starter BoyBach
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually my comment was aimed more at the originator of this thread, who had several threads basically innumerating silliness in the US, which he then heaped upon every American.
Good, that a**hole got what he deserved.I have to wonder if he actually believed that he was actually gonna get $67 million over a lost pair of pants. It's also quite satisfying to know he has to pay the legal fees and such for the Chungs as well as himself.
I stand corrected, after reading more in todays Washington Post....
The plaintiff is only at this point required to pay the court costs for the defendants. The judge is to hear arguments for for the plaintiff to pay legal fees. The plaintiff's is said to have no assets, so the Chungs may be on the hook.
Oh, that? Eh, that's more of a phrase than a sentiment.
If anyone actually believes that people do stupid things only in America, then they're blind
If anyone actually believes that people do stupid things only in America, then they're blind
Very true. Look at the French.
I would trust a member of the Columbian cartels over an American lawyer. What a bunch of lecherous scum they are. Not all, of course.
What really disturbs me about this story is, this jerk-weed is now a judge! A person with such a slimy set of principals is going to be adjudicating tens of thousands of cases. Let me guess, he was a Republican 'good old boy'.
What really disturbs me about this story is, this jerk-weed is now a judge! A person with such a slimy set of principals is going to be adjudicating tens of thousands of cases. Let me guess, he was a Republican 'good old boy'.
Hi, could you please point out these "several threads" that I've been using to "heap" upon you.
Thanks.
I can't believe that LOSER is trying to appeal the decision now. It already forced the dry cleaners to sell their store and for him to lose his job, yet he's still arguing on appeal that he deserves $54,000,000.
His guy needs to be removed from the gene pool ASAP.
His guy needs to be removed from the gene pool ASAP.
I don't even know what Pearson is thinking. It's not like the dry cleaners even could pay him $54 million even if he were to win. This lawsuit is utterly pointless except to ruin lives.
Here is the link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081022/ap_on_re_us/67_million_pants
WASHINGTON A former administrative law judge who unsuccessfully sued a dry cleaner for $54 million over a pair of lost pants tried to convince an appeals panel Wednesday that he deserves the money because he is a fraud victim.
"This is not a case about a pair of suit pants," Roy L. Pearson argued before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Rather, it is about whether the owners of a neighborhood business misled consumers with a sign that claimed "Satisfaction Guaranteed," he said.
"There is an unconditional guarantee," he argued, unless the merchant indicates otherwise.
Pearson said the sign was deceptive and that the burden was on owners Jin Nam Chung and Soo Chung to explain whether the promise came with restrictions.
Pearson sued Custom Cleaners in northeast Washington in 2005 after claiming the Chungs lost a pair of trousers from a $1,100 blue and burgundy suit, then tried to give him a pair of charcoal gray pants that he said were not his. A D.C. Superior Court judge ruled against Pearson more than a year ago, awarding him nothing.
Christopher Manning, an attorney for the Chungs, said the business owners believe they did not lose the pants.
"My clients have his pants and they're ready to be picked up by Mr. Pearson," he said.
The three-judge appeals panel peppered Pearson with questions about whether he knew of other rulings in which a promise of "Satisfaction Guaranteed" meant that unsatisfied customers should be entitled to whatever damages they believe were appropriate.
"You've got to help us figure out what it means," Judge Phyllis Thompson said. "You haven't pointed me to a case which reaches a conclusion you would have us reach."
Pearson was unable to provide any examples, but maintained that his lawsuit had merit under the city's Consumer Protection Act.
Pearson had originally sued for $67 million. He reached the amount by adding up violations under the act and almost $2 million in common law claims. But he lowered the demands after deciding to no longer seek damages related to the pants, focusing instead on the sign.
Manning said the Chungs made a good-faith effort to accommodate Pearson by initially trying to settle with him. And he warned that more such frivolous claims would likely follow should the judges rule for Pearson.
The case has taken its toll on both sides. The Chungs have sold the dry cleaning shop, citing a loss of revenue and the emotional strain of defending the lawsuit. Pearson lost his job when a D.C. commission voted not to reappoint him.
Pearson quickly left the court after the hearing and would not stop to speak with reporters.
The appeals court is expected to rule in several months. If Pearson loses again, he could seek to have the case heard by the full court or appeal to the Supreme Court.
Here is the link:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081022/ap_on_re_us/67_million_pants
WASHINGTON A former administrative law judge who unsuccessfully sued a dry cleaner for $54 million over a pair of lost pants tried to convince an appeals panel Wednesday that he deserves the money because he is a fraud victim.
"This is not a case about a pair of suit pants," Roy L. Pearson argued before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Rather, it is about whether the owners of a neighborhood business misled consumers with a sign that claimed "Satisfaction Guaranteed," he said.
"There is an unconditional guarantee," he argued, unless the merchant indicates otherwise.
Pearson said the sign was deceptive and that the burden was on owners Jin Nam Chung and Soo Chung to explain whether the promise came with restrictions.
Pearson sued Custom Cleaners in northeast Washington in 2005 after claiming the Chungs lost a pair of trousers from a $1,100 blue and burgundy suit, then tried to give him a pair of charcoal gray pants that he said were not his. A D.C. Superior Court judge ruled against Pearson more than a year ago, awarding him nothing.
Christopher Manning, an attorney for the Chungs, said the business owners believe they did not lose the pants.
"My clients have his pants and they're ready to be picked up by Mr. Pearson," he said.
The three-judge appeals panel peppered Pearson with questions about whether he knew of other rulings in which a promise of "Satisfaction Guaranteed" meant that unsatisfied customers should be entitled to whatever damages they believe were appropriate.
"You've got to help us figure out what it means," Judge Phyllis Thompson said. "You haven't pointed me to a case which reaches a conclusion you would have us reach."
Pearson was unable to provide any examples, but maintained that his lawsuit had merit under the city's Consumer Protection Act.
Pearson had originally sued for $67 million. He reached the amount by adding up violations under the act and almost $2 million in common law claims. But he lowered the demands after deciding to no longer seek damages related to the pants, focusing instead on the sign.
Manning said the Chungs made a good-faith effort to accommodate Pearson by initially trying to settle with him. And he warned that more such frivolous claims would likely follow should the judges rule for Pearson.
The case has taken its toll on both sides. The Chungs have sold the dry cleaning shop, citing a loss of revenue and the emotional strain of defending the lawsuit. Pearson lost his job when a D.C. commission voted not to reappoint him.
Pearson quickly left the court after the hearing and would not stop to speak with reporters.
The appeals court is expected to rule in several months. If Pearson loses again, he could seek to have the case heard by the full court or appeal to the Supreme Court.
I don't know who decided it but there is a "standard" serving temperature for coffee. Mcdonalds actually trains their staff about the "standard" serving temperature. and the standard brewing temp as well. They attempt to keep this very well controlled as it effects taste as well as how lonng the brewed coffee can be held. Years ago I actually sat in a class and studied this kind of thing, like how long food can be kept under a heat lamp and so on and so on.....
What the management of that McDonalds did was a stupid trick design to save some pennies. (well pennies add up...) they offer free refills. but to slow the rate at which customers request these refill they serve coffe at a way hotter serving temperure durring periods of high demand. the customers have to wait for it to cool before they can drink it. the waiting period reduces the amount they can drink.
If you think that is cheap you should see them turning a can of ketsup upside down and letting it drip for a couple hours to recover ten cents worth of ketsup. But all of this adds up at the end of the month if you do 50 of these kinds of things.
The woman was able to sue because the store had ratched up the serving temp to un-safe levels just to make a few cents.
I would love to meet this guy and his lawyers and see how they can justify suing the dry cleaners, let alone a multi-million dollar law suit.
Yes, in all seriousness, no matter how this case turns out, the judge should be removed from his position because anyone who by their own admission can become that emotionally distraught over a pair of pants lacks the mental health to hold his position. I would also argue that someone in that state of mental frailty should not be allowed to have a drivers license or even have custody of any minor children. In fact, I would argue that such a fragile person may even be a candidate for incarceration at a mental health facility for his own good. And if I had ever been convicted of a crime by this judge in the past, I would petition for my verdict to be overturned because someone in his fragile mental state could not possibly be trusted to deliver justice.
I personally would enjoy seeing all this come about and see this guy suffer the consequences of his actions. Consequences that he seems so intent upon dealing others.
He should be warned, that if he tries to proceed with the lawsuit, he would get jail time for waiting the courts time. This about nothing. No one in the WORLD would give a 100% satisfaction guarantee, and if your weren't happy, pay you millions.
Yeah, it is called freedom. He may be ridiculous, but Americans have the freedom to do this.
Please don't go down that route... Don't want this moving into the PRSI side for unnecessary reasons...
OFT.
I do not agree with the suit or many others like it, but he has a right to which he is exercising.