The $67 Million Pair of Pants

[sandgk]

Mr. Smarty Pants loses his case - judge rules in favor of dry cleaner.

WASHINGTON - A judge on Monday ruled in favor of a dry cleaner that was sued for $54 million over a missing pair of pants in a case that garnered international attention and renewed calls for litigation reform.

 

[Best Buckeye]

Score one for the good guys. If the judge had ruled in the Dipstick's favor he should have been disbarred.

 

[gregorylee]

but are they going to award the cleaners at least lawyers fees?

 

[MrsB]

And here is a reward for judge!

 

[SparkyOSU]

 

[sandgk]

"It ain't over till it's over" - Berra

Pantsless on the Potomac now wants Judge to revisit the verdict.

WASHINGTON - A customer who lost a $54 million lawsuit against a dry cleaner over a missing pair of pants on Wednesday asked a judge to reconsider the verdict.
Roy L. Pearson, a local administrative law judge, argued that District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff failed to address his legal claims when she ruled that the business owners did not violate the city's consumer protection law by failing to live up to his expectations of a "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign once displayed in the store.
"The court effectively substituted a guarantee of satisfaction with 'reasonable' limits and preconditions for the unconditional and unambigious guarantee of satisfaction the defendant-merchant chose to advertise for seven years," Pearson wrote. "That was a fundamental legal error."

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

"The court effectively substituted a guarantee of satisfaction with 'reasonable' limits and preconditions for the unconditional and unambigious guarantee of satisfaction the defendant-merchant chose to advertise for seven years," Pearson wrote.

There's a difference between "unconditional and unambigious" and "unlimited". Unconditional means the cleaners can't blame it on anyone else and that they themselves have to accept responsibility for any loss or damage to the clothes in their charge. Unambiguous means clear and without hidden meaning. Neither of those mean that they have unlimited liability for a simple mistake.

Someone needs to pop a cap in this guy's ass...

 

[Zurp]

Is there a transcript of Troppo's testimony?

I haven't talked to Troppo in a while. I may have to try to get in touch with him today.

 

[MililaniBuckeye]

I haven't talked to Troppo in a while. I may have to try to get in touch with him today.

Anyone else see the irony of Zurp posting in this thread?

 

[Zurp]

Anyone else see the irony of Zurp posting in this thread?

You and your pants-wearing friends do not scare me.

 

[Best Buckeye]

The cleaners are now trying to take the judge to "the cleaners" :tongue2:

Owners Suing Judge Who Filed $54M Claim Over Lost Pants


POSTED: 9:29 am CDT August 11, 2007



WASHINGTON -- A Washington judge who sued his dry cleaner over a lost pair of pants is now fighting the cleaner's attempt to make him pay the legal bill.
Administrative law judge Roy Pearson sued for 54 million dollars and lost. And Custom Cleaners is now suing him for the 83-thousand dollars the owners say they had to spend to defend themselves.
In a court objection filed Friday, Pearson says he shouldn't have to pay. But the owners' lawyer says the objection is without merit. He says it's part of what he calls an "irrational crusade" against the cleaners.
Pearson had claimed that the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign in the shop was misleading and violated D.C.'s consumer protection act.

 

[gregorylee]

I hope they freaking win, this guys abuse of the legal system was an embarassment. The city should sue his ass for the salaries of all the employee's time he wasted as well.