I hate lawyers
-
Oct 23, 2008Missing pants case returns
Mr Roy L. Pearson sued Custom Cleaners in northeast Washington in 2005 after claiming the Chungs lost a pair of trousers from a US$1,100 blue and burgundy suit, then tried to give him a pair of charcoal gray pants that he said were not his. -- PHOTO: AGENCE FRANCE-PRESSEWASHINGTON - A FORMER administrative law judge who unsuccessfully sued a dry cleaner for US$54 million (S$81 million) over a pair of lost pants tried to convince an appeals panel on Wednesday that he deserves the money because he is a fraud victim.
'This is not a case about a pair of suit pants,' Mr Roy L. Pearson argued before the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Rather, it is about whether the owners of a neighbourhood business misled consumers with a sign that claimed 'Satisfaction Guaranteed,' he said.
'There is an unconditional guarantee,' he argued, unless the merchant indicates otherwise.
Mr Pearson said the sign was deceptive and that the burden was on owners Mr Jin Nam Chung and Mr Jin Soo Chung to explain whether the promise came with restrictions.
Mr Pearson sued Custom Cleaners in northeast Washington in 2005 after claiming the Chungs lost a pair of trousers from a US$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 Mr Pearson more than a year ago, awarding him nothing.
Mr 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 Mr 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.'
Mr Pearson was unable to provide any examples, but maintained that his lawsuit had merit under the city's Consumer Protection Act.
Mr Pearson had originally sued for US$67 million. He reached the amount by adding up violations under the act and almost US$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.
Mr 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. Mr Pearson lost his job when a D.C. commission voted not to reappoint him.
Mr 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 Mr Pearson loses again, he could seek to have the case heard by the full court or appeal to the Supreme Court. -- AP
-
The thing is whether he can win the case...
-
The shop owner has to sell the store anyway, even though this guy lost. he had brought ruin on them, and is still hoping to grab more money from them...
-
US$54 million!!!
This guy must be deluded to think that mom and pop laundry stores can pay those kind of damages.
-
if any joker try this kind of stunt in singapore, he will definitely get booed out of court.
-
lawyers are lawyers and they made the choice to be a lawyer.
politicians : ditto.
they are what they are. thats real.
-
count me in.
-
Peeps... he is just a "blacksheep"...
But yah.. I agree.. I don't trust lawyers either.
-
A lawyer who's obviously abusing the law for his own personal gain. This SOB deserves to be lynched.
