Judge sues cleaner for US$54 million (1 Viewer)

^CoSMic DoRiS^^

makes the woosh noises
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
5,274
Location
middle of nowhere
Gender
Female
HSC
2006
ahahahahaha, what the?
i dont get why that guy is willing to spend goodness knows how much money on legal proceedings when he could just spend 70 bucks on a new pair of pants and get the fuck over it.
it just makes you think about how utterly petty some people can be. its so unreasonable...i cant even understand the reasons behind this, its so small and petty and stupid.
 

Gilbert1

Humoures Pun
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Messages
951
Location
Glebe
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Roy Pearson, an administrative judge for the District of Columbia, said he only needed $US2.5 million for himself to cover the emotional distress he suffered after Custom Cleaners misplaced a pair of pants he brought in for alteration.
It has gotta be a joke.
 

kkkkaitlyn

Member
Joined
May 16, 2006
Messages
46
Gender
Female
HSC
2007
emotional distress...
there pants my god
wat a selfish stupid person
 
G

Gavvvvvin

Guest
Wow. He must feel like a big man reducing some poor Korean immigrant to tears. I hope the stupid nigger gets lynched.
 

PrinceHarry

Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2007
Messages
354
Location
London
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
Perhaps the pant was made from Gold striped with platinum studded with thousands of 20 carat diamonds. He is entitled to claim for damages done by the careless cleaner.
 

Jiga

Active Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2004
Messages
1,251
Location
Miranda, Sutherland
He entitled to claim damages... say $1000! Its really impossible for me to believe this has actually occured, if it was $50,000 I would have thought its ridiculous... but $2.5mil for emotional distress!?! People get less for such claims when say a hospital is negligent over a loved one dying... now thats emotional distress! Not losing some fuckin pants.

Setting such a precedent you'd think would open the doors to more stupid claims, emotional distress for being late to an interview because of the trains, emotional distress for having to make a warranty claim on a car, emotional distress for a blackout making you miss your favourite TV program. Hell I would say all of these listed are more entitled to a large claim then losing some bloody pants.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
L

LaraB

Guest
has anyone seen an update on this?

Because when you read it carefully - no decision has been handed down at the date that article is written, so for all we konw he was just cocky and didn't succeed.....? or succeeded in proving his case but was awarded a dramatically reduced amount...?
 

201055

BaCC 07~~
Joined
Sep 26, 2005
Messages
127
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
This case will be thrown out the window. If it doesn't, i smell foul play. In fact, that judge should be sent to jail for wasting so much of taxpayers money. It could have gone to making more bombs, for example.
 

DeathB4Life

Bánned
Joined
Feb 4, 2006
Messages
590
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
they should counter sue for him causing them emotional distress. if someone was sueing me for $50 million i would have an instant heart attack.

what sucks even more is the massive legal costs that the family has to pay for just because someone else wants to chuck a whinge.

im sure someone could make a lottery out of this: sue X amount of people for Y amount of dollars each with Z legal costs with N the number of successful sueings being a function of X. if Y*N > X*Z then profit!
 
Last edited:

^CoSMic DoRiS^^

makes the woosh noises
Joined
Jan 13, 2005
Messages
5,274
Location
middle of nowhere
Gender
Female
HSC
2006
^ lol.

my bus driver shortchanged me yesterday... that's 40 whole cents i'm never gonna see again. i'm feeling a bit emo over it, how much do you think i should sue him for? 6 million? 7? yeah, i'm thinking 7, too. i mean, the whole episode was just rather distressing, what with the ticket machine failure and all. :( :(

*cuts*
 

BritneySpears

Banned
Joined
Mar 21, 2007
Messages
252
Gender
Female
HSC
2007
Dry cleaner wins in missing-pants case By LUBNA TAKRURI, Associated Press Writer
17 minutes ago



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.




District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled that the Korean immigrant owners of Custom Cleaners did not violate the city's Consumer Protection Act by failing to live up to Roy L. Pearson's expectations of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign that was once placed in the store window.

"Plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr. takes nothing from the defendants, and defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung are awarded the costs of this action against the plaintiff Roy L. Pearson, Jr.," the ruling read.

Pearson, an administrative law judge, originally sought $67 million from the Chungs after he claimed they lost a pair of suit trousers and later tried to return a pair that he said was not his. He arrived at the figure by adding up years of law violations and almost $2 million in common law claims. Pearson later dropped demands for damages related to the pants and focused his claims on signs in the shop, which have since been removed.

Chris Manning, the Chungs' attorney, countered that no reasonable person would interpret the signs to be an unconditional promise of satisfaction.

The two-day trial earlier this month drew a standing-room-only crowd, including many Korean and international media outlets covering the story. It even overshadowed the drunken driving trial of former Mayor Marion Barry.

The Chungs also said the trial had taken an enormous financial and emotional toll on them and exposed them to widespread ridicule.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/ap_on_fe_st/67_million_pants
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top