Pricey Pants

In light of all the subpoenas going around in regard the the fired judges scandal here in DC I figured I would present a different picture. I'm not presenting my views on the matter and whether or not our current Attorney General is a few beers short of a six-pack ("You know senator...I...I...I can't seem to recall that"); no, rather I wanted to write about a case I read about earlier this week. In the case of the eight federal prosecutors who were fired, there is a bit of gray area in regards to whether the did or didn't deserve to be fired. In this case, I truly am curious to see what happens to the judge. Here in DC a judge, Roy Pearson, used to frequent a dry cleaning service in the city run by the Chungs, South Korean immigrants who opened the store and have been doing brisk business since then. From all reports, Pearson was a frequent customer despite having a few problems with the Chungs over the years but his most recent actions are a bit curious and I'm beginning to question the judgement of Judge Pearson.

From what is being reported in the paper, Pearson dropped off some clothes to be cleaned and picked up two days later. When Pearson arrived at the store two days later he was told that the pants were not ready and were apparently missing. Needless to say, anyone who has had something like that happen to them is likely to commiserate with Pearson and offer up sympathy. However, that wasn't the end of it. Pearson complained and when the Chungs asked the price of the pants Pearson reported them to be $1,000 in value so they decided to pay up the next time he came in. However, a week later, the pants turned up and so the Chungs refused to pay. Pearson's response was to sue.

The Chungs made offers of $3,000, then $4,600, and then $12,000 but no amount seemed to satisfy Pearson; so he came back with his own offer. He decided to sue the Chungs for what totals to about $65 million. Now I agree, it can be aggravating to have a pair of pants get lost and then refuse a store's offer to pay for them. And it's not like the Chungs didn't offer to recompense Pearson for his loss and the delay he suffered in getting his pants back. But $65 million?! First of all, how did he arrive at this amount? Well let's see. According to Pearson, he was so incensed at his treatment by the Chungs that he refused to stay within his neighborhood to go to a dry cleaner so he has included $15,000 which covers the cost of renting a car every weekend for ten years to go to another business. Renting a car to go to another business? Why does he need to rent a car? And if he's already renting a car then why not include airfare? Who knows, perhaps the dry clearners in Alaska are better since they use glacial waters for their washing process. Besides, I know of very few places in the city where there is not a dry cleaner within a few blocks of any location.

Pearson also includes the cost of 'violating' DC's consumer protection law which fines violators around $1,500 per violation, per day that the violation occurs. Pearson estimated he must have had 12 violations over 1200 days and there were three members of the Chung family he was calling out. So $1,500 times 12 times 1200 days times 3 defendents (i.e. the Chungs) and that comes to a grand total of about $64.8 million. While the mathematics of the equation work out quite nicely, I am amazed that Pearson is being so petty to go this far. Personally, I think he's a glutton for punishment. Why? Well for one thing he counted up 12 violations; I would be curious to know what he considers a violation. If for example it was bad service or not delivering the goods on time, then once is okay, twice is worrisome and a third time is more than enough. It's time to find a new dry cleaner. The fact that Pearson chose to continue patronizing the Chungs business meant that he either didn't have any other business to choose from (I don't believe that) or that he was being understanding and letting the mistakes go by (I don't believe that either).

Whatever else their faults, I think the fact that the Chungs offered up $12,000 at the height was more than a generous gesture on their part. Even associations that deal with these kind of Tort Law cases have stepped in to help the Chungs and have offered to buy a new suit for Pearson but he has remained stoically silent and refuses to change his stance. If Pearson's purpose is to raise awareness or point fingers and claim that the Chungs are bad people, well, he's got a funny way of doing it. It's funny because he is making himself appear to be the bigger fool by suing for such a ridiculous amount. I'm sure the Chungs are quite well off but for them to cough up $65 million for a pair of pants which to this day are still waiting to be picked up by Pearson, I think that's utterly ridiculous.

In one of my classes I had to read about Tort Law and how it can affect small business. Now everyone has read about cases where people have violated the rules and regulations or ignored warnings and been injured because of their actions yet the choose to sue someone else for their own negligence. These are cases like walking onto a construction site without permission and getting hurt and then suing the construction company for having a dangerous job site or driving without a seatbelt and then suing the car manufacturer when you get injured in a car accident. In all of these cases, the person usually bringing the case is a person with very little knowledge of the law and a lawyer who is doing it more for the paycheck then the principle. In this case, Pearson is acting as the client and lawyer himself and for him to bring a case before the court that is clearly above and beyond the realm of sanity merits investigation itself. If there was a judge that needed to be investigated for his shoddy actions, it wasn't the eight who were fired for 'bad performance' but judges like Pearson who are attempting to enforce the law with a large ego and very little common sense.