Bear Grylls
06-07-2007, 01:04 AM
Now this seems a little more reasonable.
Judge Now Only Wants $54 Million From Dry Cleaners for Lost Pants
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
WASHINGTON — A judge who was seeking $67 million from a dry cleaners that lost his pants has loosened the belt on his lawsuit. Now, he's asking for only $54 million, according to a May 30 court filing in D.C. Superior Court.
Roy L. Pearson, a District of Columbia administrative law judge, first sued Custom Cleaners over a pair of pants that went missing two years ago. He was seeking about $65 million under the D.C. consumer protection act and almost $2 million in common law claims.
He is now focusing his claims on signs in the shop that have since been removed. The suit alleges that Jin Nam Chung, Soo Chung and Ki Chung committed fraud and misled consumers with signs that claimed "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service."
But Chris Manning, the Chungs' attorney, says that can be considered fraud only if the signs misled a "reasonable" person. No reasonable person, he says, would interpret them to be an unconditional promise of satisfaction.
Pearson, who is representing himself, said in an e-mail that the focus of the case, from the start, was based on the "false, misleading and fraudulent advertisements displayed by the Chungs."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,278414,00.html
Judge Now Only Wants $54 Million From Dry Cleaners for Lost Pants
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
WASHINGTON — A judge who was seeking $67 million from a dry cleaners that lost his pants has loosened the belt on his lawsuit. Now, he's asking for only $54 million, according to a May 30 court filing in D.C. Superior Court.
Roy L. Pearson, a District of Columbia administrative law judge, first sued Custom Cleaners over a pair of pants that went missing two years ago. He was seeking about $65 million under the D.C. consumer protection act and almost $2 million in common law claims.
He is now focusing his claims on signs in the shop that have since been removed. The suit alleges that Jin Nam Chung, Soo Chung and Ki Chung committed fraud and misled consumers with signs that claimed "Satisfaction Guaranteed" and "Same Day Service."
But Chris Manning, the Chungs' attorney, says that can be considered fraud only if the signs misled a "reasonable" person. No reasonable person, he says, would interpret them to be an unconditional promise of satisfaction.
Pearson, who is representing himself, said in an e-mail that the focus of the case, from the start, was based on the "false, misleading and fraudulent advertisements displayed by the Chungs."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,278414,00.html