In 2007, a man in DC tried to sue his dry cleaners for $54 million for losing his pants, when the pants and suit themselves likely cost less than $1000, and the cleaning was about $10.50. Pearson felt that he was entitled to this money because of the sign outside the store avertizing “Satisfaction Guaranteed”. Bartnoff, the judge, did not grant Pearson his $54 million for the lost pair of pants. Bartnoff made Pearson pay off the court costs and expenses suffered by the Chungs, the store owners. After Pearson brought in the pants and the Chungs were unable to find it, Pearson demanded $1,150 in order to buy a new suit. The Chungs found a suit, but Pearson denied that those pants were his. The Chungs failed to respond to his demand, which initiated Pearson’s call for a lawsuit. At first, Pearson asked for $67 million, but eventually pulled back his demand. He had rejected offers to settle for $3,000, then $4,600, and even denied $12,000, even though the pants cost significantly less. The court case drew in numbers of reporters, even attracting television crews from Korea, where the Chungs were born. It’s no anomaly for Americans such as Pearson to try their luck making millions by exploiting others in court cases.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/25/AR2007062500443_2.html
https://abovethelaw.com/2018/06/judge-who-sued-dry-cleaner-for-54-million-over-missing-pants-about-to-get-wedgie-from-disciplinary-committee/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
As Coronavirus is spreading through the world, people are losing their lives and the virus has been spreading out of hand. As it entered t... -
Ethan Couch and his defense team used an 'affluenza defense'. Affluenza is the psychological condition in which wealthy children hav...
-
Welcome to our classroom blog! I sincerely hope you find this a valuable resource for information and sharing ideas. Please remember to ob...
This case is definitely a strange case. There was no need for Pearson to sue the Chungs just because his pants were lost. It's ridiculous to see that people will do the bare minimum to try and gain a couple dollars. The fact that he opted to sue for millions of dollars shows that he just wanted the money, but he was obviously denied of his request. He should've just left it alone and accepted the apology from the Chungs or asked for a much lower price from the Chungs.
ReplyDeleteThis case is a clear example of a frivolous case. Pearson could have easily settled for thousands of dollars but instead chose to gain infamy by suing a family for tens of millions of dollars. However, I feel justice was served in this case because the judge made Pearson pay off the expenses he caused the Chungs by taking them to court.
ReplyDelete