No one incubus accuse the US legal gadget of being anything clashing than thorough. After two days in court and a legal persuasion sustained to 8,448 words, a judge in Washington has finally reached a verdict on whether a dry-cleaning company should pay $54m (Å27m) in damages and compensation to a client who lost his trousers.
The judgment liability neatly be summed up in just single word: no. The District of Columbia judge yesterday disregarded the legal action and presented prices to the dry cleaners.
The case attracted widespread overseas coverage, particularly from European newspapers that relish the inspection of Americans making fools of themselves. It also provoked considerable comment within the country about the danger of exposing the justice system to ridicule through litigiousness.
To set up matters worse, the plaintiff in this case turned into himself a judge, albeit in the unglamorous area of administrative law.
Roy Pearson claimed that by losing his trousers the South korean owners of the company, Custom Cleaners, had damaged consumer protection law.
Soo Chung, Jin Nam Chung and Ki Y Chung had promised him „satisfaction guaranteed” in a advert in the store window, Mr Pearson argued moment court, however unsuccessful to live up to it.
Mr Pearson launched a legal action that demanded $2m supremacy damages in that himself on the foundation of his mental anguish and inconvenience, and more than $50m in fines. He then introduced on to that $500,000 felony fees – a controversial move priority influence mind that he was representing himself.
The plaintiff will now have to pay about $1,000 of the shop’s legal costs.
Though hardly ever the most succinct writer, Judge book Bartnoff was crystal clear hold her ruling. Almost. She wrote: „A reasonable consumer may not interpret ‘satisfaction guaranteed’ to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer’s unreasonable demands or to accede to demands that the merchant has reasonable producer to dispute.”
