U.S. judge presses $54 mln suit over pants

[GaryC 7]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. judge appealed his $54 million (27 million pounds) lawsuit on Tuesday against the dry-cleaning shop that misplaced his trousers, shrugging off legal setbacks and international ridicule.

Judge Roy Pearson filed a notice of appeal with the District of Columbia Superior Court, indicating that he won't abandon the crusade that has turned him into a symbol of America's lawsuit-happy legal culture.

Pearson asked his neighbourhood dry cleaners to pay him $1,150 when they misplaced a pair of trousers he brought in for a $10.50 alteration in May 2005. The owners of Custom Cleaners said they located the garment a few days later, but Pearson said the pair they offered him was not his.

Claiming that the shop's "satisfaction guaranteed" sign misled customers who, like him, were dissatisfied with their experience, Pearson sought $1,500 for every day that Custom Cleaners displayed the sign over a four-year period, multiplied by the three members of the Chung family, who owned the business.

He also sought $15,000 to rent a car to take his clothes to another cleaner for 10 years.

The judge hearing the case ruled in June that Pearson did not interpret the sign in a reasonable fashion.

A sympathetic public donated enough money to pay the Chung's legal fees, estimated at around $85,000.

Pearson, meanwhile, could lose his job as an administrative judge for the District of Columbia, where he hears disputes involving the decisions of city government agencies.

The city has warned Pearson it might not reappoint him when his job comes up for review next month, according to The Washington Post.

Pearson was not immediately available for comment.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070814/od_uk_...koe_uk_trousers

[JoeMama 0]

All I can say is "Bye bye Judge"!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

That guy is nuckin futs...

Here's something worth noting (his argument was based on 'Satisfaction Guaranteed')

Over the years, a large body of jurisprudence has grown up around the words “satisfaction guaranteed,” evolving from disputes over cars, clothing, coal, elevators, farm produce, furniture, guns, household appliances, musical instruments and, you name it, even a steamboat.

A recent article in American Law Reports devoted 39 pages to the question and found that, basically, jurisdictions follow one of two rules to determine a buyer’s satisfaction: the buyer’s personal judgment, exercised in good faith, and the “reasonable man rule,” binding the buyer if a reasonable man would have been satisfied.

Of course, the law being the law, it can be a lot more complicated than that, which is why the advice of the Federal Trade Commission, which regulates consumer products and business advertising, has a certain elegance in its simplicity.

Satisfaction should be guaranteed, the commission says, “only if the advertiser is willing to provide full refunds to customers when, for any reason, they return the merchandise.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/weekinre...agewanted=print

[mawilson 2,133]

The Judge is not a quitter.

Beware, Mr Chung!

[Otto 83]

T-Shirt Campaign to raise funds for the judge...

<----Best Seller!

[trueimage 0]

sore loser

[Fandango 1,439]

what a b@stard!

I hope he loses his appointment to the bench....that is no judge I want presiding over gov't matters.

Edited August 15, 2007 by LisaD

[Jasman0717 9]

What an idiot!

[Sonshyne 2]

Sounds like someone needs to get a life