Reply
Tue 12 Jun, 2007 09:50 pm
I find it hard to believe this case has not been thrown out.
Hey! If he didn't have the pants he needed to be a judge then he couldn't go to court and criminals would be set free! Murder and mayhem would ensue! The criminals would take over the state as anarchy reigns! Foriegn nations would see our weaknesses and take advantage thus causing a major world war and pissibe annihilation of the human race! This is indeed a worthwhile case!
He should be derobed as well as depantsed. Whatever bench it is that he sits on, I hope they're doing their best to disbar him. The man hasn't the remotest conception of justice. Or sense of proportion.
edgarblythe
This takes the cake. I would have thrown this lawsuit out of court, penalize Pearson for filing a frivolous lawsuit and awarded the Chungs money payable from Pearson. If I were the Chungs I would have counter-sued at the least but I don't know if that can be done in that state.
The plaintif is so unstable, emotionally, he began crying in the courtroom yesterday. Thank goodness there was no jacket to match the pants, or it could have really gotten pricey.
Even worse, he may have been faking those tears to make a point of the distress he's been under over losing his precious pants. What a piece of work, huh?
They found the pants, in good condition. They offered him 12,000 dollars. They went much farther trying to settle this than I would have.
The Judge stated that he was representing the Community in his lawsuit against the Koreans. Apparently, other members of the Community feel that they've been unjustly treated by the Korean shop keepers.
The issue isn't pants!
The issue is really race-relations and in this case,
the relations between Blacks and Asian-Americans who live in the same community, and apparently share the services of this Korean-owned business.
$12,000 would have more than met the "satisfaction guaranteed" requirement. At least for me. I hope that company sues and takes the guy to the cleaners! And I hope he loses more than just his pants!
I haven't seen any reports that make this a race issue. If that entered the courtroom, there would be even better grounds for dismissal.
the article edgar cited wrote:I'm no lawyer, but I was a little surprised that rather than making a sort of coherent and impassioned plea for his case, Pearson continued citing statutes and cases that proved his claims under the Consumer Protection Act.
The plaintiff is looking to protect the record for appeal, and introduce in all sorts of junk so as to drag this thing along for even longer. He expects to lose. I agree with Miller, actually, I think this is racially motivated as the upshot of it seems to be the desire to run the Chungs outta town on a rail.
One might infer the intent is racially motivated, but nobody involved has suggested anything of the kind.
I can't believe he's saying the signs are fraudulent. They are no such thing.
The first sign said "Satisfaction Guaranteed." One of the definitions of satisfaction is: payment of what is due. So they guarantee that if they lose someone's pants, they'll pay for them. But I have a feeling that his pants aren't worth $54 million dollars.
The other sign said "Same Day Service." This is in no way a promise. It doesn't guarantee same day service. It advertises one of the things they offer. And, in most cases, it's true. Just because every once in a while the service takes more than one day doesn't mean that the sign is untrue. In most cases they do offer same day service.
The defendants (owners of the dry cleaning business) won today. The court ruled that they did not violate the consumer protection statute. The plaintiff was ordered to pay their court costs.
Debra Law
Thanks for posts. I am glad for the Chungs.
I saw no mention of appeal. I hope that ends it. I also still don't see this so much as a case of racism, as a guy totally out of whack with reality.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace