Duhaime.org
Law · Legal Information · Justice
 

Duhaime's LawMag

Jun 24

Written by: Lloyd Duhaime
Sunday, June 24, 2007 11:59 AM

Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff. Say that slowly, enjoying every syllable.

She's the smart dame in the District of Columbia who threw out that lame suit (pun intended) brought by her colleague judge, Roy L. Pearson, claiming $67-million for a pair of pants he alleges a Korean dry-cleaner botched.

In a real culture clash that does not leave America, black America or American attorneys looking better, all of which Pearson is, the Korean dry-cleaner answered, when asked about taking Pearson back, (according to CNN.com), that "if he wants to continue to use our services, then yes, they would accept him as a customer."

At issue was, apparently, the import of the words satisfaction guaranteed.

Again, according to CNN Judge Bartnoff said, in her reasons for judgment, hitting Pearson for costs, that "a reasonable consumer would not interpret 'Satisfaction Guaranteed' to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer's unreasonable demands or accede to demands that the merchant has reasonable grounds to dispute."

Tags:

Your name:
Title:
Comment:
Add Comment    Cancel  

Latest LawMag headlines:

Police: Would That Be Cowardice or Stupidity?

British Columbia experiences two shining examples of police inaction - either cowardice or stupidity - in less than nine months.

Pro Bono Hypocrisy

Envelope please! (Drum roll.) The award for pro bono works goes to ... John Doe, Esquire and Q.C. ..... because he has the highest rates to his paying clients and he can afford to charade as a poverty avenger!

End of the World Law

As we all march to our lemming-like demise upon the cliff of environmental disaster, a path of law back to safety may yet be found.


Read earlier headlines »
Subscribe to stay in touch »


Switch to variable width

Switch to fixed width

Unless otherwise noted, this article was written by Lloyd Duhaime, Barrister, Solicitor, Attorney and Lawyer (and Notary Public!). It is not intended to be legal advice and you would be foolhardy to rely on it in respect to any specific situation you or an acquaintance may be facing. In addition, the law changes rapidly and sometimes with little notice so from time to time, an article may not be up to date. Therefore, this is merely legal information designed to educate the reader. If you have a real situation, this information will serve as a good springboard to get legal advice from a lawyer.

top