Site Announcements

View the results of the New Wave Outpost 20th Anniversary Top Songs Poll here:
http://www.nwoutpost.com/poll/results


Coming Soon: Top Albums Poll. Stay tuned!

Welcome to the new forum!
If you are a previously registered user, you must do the following:

1) Click on 'I forgot my password' at the login prompt
2) Enter your username and email you registered with and submit
3) You will receive an email with an activation link. Please click it and then log in using the random password provided
4) Go to your User Control Panel and click on the Profile tab
5) Click on 'Edit Account Settings' and enter your new password twice followed by the random password provided earlier. Click Submit.
6) That's it...you're back in! You may have to log in again with your new password.


If you forgot your email address, please email me (MikeP) at: mikepaulsen12@gmail.com

Note: you must now use bb code buttons in the Post form for embedded images, YouTube videos, etc.
For example, to post embedded YouTube videos: paste in the link (e.g., http://www.youtube.com/watch?XYZ1234567), highlight it and then click the YouTube button.

Victory for the Dry Cleaner

Reserved for off-topic posts.

Victory for the Dry Cleaner

Postby DonGately » Mon Jun 25, 2007 5:11 am

Hope they can recover attorney's fees and then sue this dipshit back for a frivolous lawsuit or something:


WASHINGTON - A judge ruled Monday in favor of a dry cleaner that was sued for $54 million over a missing pair of pants.

The owners of Custom Cleaners did not violate the city's consumer protection law by failing to live up to Roy L. Pearson's expectations of the "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign once displayed in the store window, District of Columbia Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled.

"A reasonable consumer would not interpret 'Satisfaction Guaranteed' to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer's unreasonable demands" or to agree to demands that the merchant would have reasonable grounds for disputing, the judge wrote.

Bartnoff ordered Pearson to pay the court costs of defendants Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y. Chung.

Pearson, an administrative law judge, originally sought $67 million from the Chungs, claiming they lost a pair of trousers from a blue and maroon suit, then tried to give him a pair a pair of charcoal gray pants that he said were not his. He arrived at the amount by adding up years of alleged law violations and almost $2 million in common law fraud claims.

Bartnoff wrote, however, that Pearson failed to prove that the pants the dry cleaner tried to return were not the pants he taken in for alterations.

Pearson later dropped demands for damages related to the pants and focused his claims on signs in the shop, which have since been removed.

The court costs amount to just over $1,000 for photocopying, filing and similar expenses, according to the Chungs' attorney. A motion to recover the Chungs' tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees will be considered later.

Chris Manning, the Chungs' attorney, praised the ruling, which followed a two-day trial earlier this month.

"Judge Bartnoff has spoken loudly in suggesting that, while consumers should be protected, abusive lawsuits like this will not be tolerated," Manning said in a statement. "Judge Bartnoff has chosen common sense and reasonableness over irrationality and unbridled venom."

Pearson did not immediately respond to a call and an e-mail seeking comment.
DonGately
The Jet Set
 
Posts: 881
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2005 5:23 am
Location:

Return to —Not Necessarily New Wave—

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests