Legal News

Will The Great American Pants Suit Fail for a Lack of Precedent?

By Dan Slater

Soo Chung, left, and Jin Chung, represented by their lawyer Chris Manning, standing, who are being sued by D.C. judge Roy Pearson, right, June 13, 2007. (AP/Dana Verkouteren)

The Great American Pants Suit passed the point of strange a long time ago, but yesterday’s arguments before the D.C. Court of Appeals teased out what, in the final analysis, may sound the death knell for Roy Pearson’s audacious court battle. Quite simply, the case is unprecedented.

When Pearson, the former administrative law judge who unsuccessfully sued his dry cleaner for $54 million over a pair of lost pants, went before the panel yesterday, he said: “This is not a case about a pair of suit pants.” Rather, it is about whether the owners of a neighborhood business misled consumers with a sign that claimed “Satisfaction Guaranteed,” he said. “There is an unconditional guarantee,” he argued, according to the AP report, unless the merchant indicates otherwise.

The panel reportedly peppered Pearson with questions about whether he knew of other rulings in which a promise of “Satisfaction Guaranteed” meant that unsatisfied customers should be entitled to whatever damages they believe were appropriate.

“You’ve got to help us figure out what it means,” Judge Phyllis Thompson said. “You haven’t pointed me to a case which reaches a conclusion you would have us reach.”

Pearson was unable to provide any examples, but maintained that his lawsuit had merit under the city’s Consumer Protection Act.

At one point, according to this WaPo report, Judge Michael Farrell threw up his hands and asked: “Where is the fraud?”

Full post as published by Law Blog - WSJ.com on October 23, 2008 (boomark / email).