Who agrees that the judge was right to rule for the cleaners?

Question

The ruling was handed down that there was no basis for the $64K suit against the dry cleaners that lost the judge's suit pants. Do you agree that justice has been served? That it was indeed a "frivolous suit"? Should he pay the cleaners' lawyer fees?

Answer 1

I think the judge should should be brought up on charges of extortion. He was using his influence to try and rob this small business. Dis-bar him and make him pay all the defendants legal fees

Answer 2

I do believe justice is served in this case. In some reports I'd read previously - the cleaner's offered to pay him for the cost of the entire suit. I think that is a fair enough settlement and it upholds their "satisfaction guaranteed" clause. A dry cleaner I went to ruined a costly cashmere coat. They too had a "100 % satisfaction" policy and offered me a cash settlement. I, however, did my research and brought them back a signed statement from the boutique that sold me the coat stating that the manufacter no longer makes that particular coat; and a similar coat to the one I purchased was for sale but at a higher cost. What they were offering was not compensation enough to even cover the cost of the coat they'd ruined! Not by even half! They refused, so I took it to court and they were forced to pay for my court costs, the full purchase price of the coat they ruined; as well as, the cost it would be for me to purchase the current style. The judge even asked them - "Why not pay her for the price of the current coat? You DID admittedly ruin her original!" Their response was - "We don't think we should have to pay full price for a used coat!" I don't think my demands were unreasonable. The guy who sued (a judge at that!) should have known better . . . where does the greed end?

Answer 3

I think he should have to pay the dry cleaners for attorney fees, lost wages, defamation of character, & for being a complete jerk too. It was definitely a frivilous suit.
He is a pompous arragant jerk who should be removed from the bench.

FYI - CNN says he was out of work until recently & was getting the suit let out (hot air will cause that too) for his new job. They also said he had almost maxed out most of his credit cards before the legal suit. Using a small family run dry cleaners to try to pad his empty bank account seems like extortion.

Answer 4

Yeah, I agree with the dry cleaners. Because there's no way a pair of pants actually cost that much and why spend $50 on clothing when you can get the same clothing for a discount price, save money ,and spend it on other things?

Answer 5

This story was the funniest thing I read in ages! it was the line that the plaintiff was 'distressed' at his trousers going missing.
Bloody idiot! there are children swimming in raw sewage, soldiers dying in random wars and BBC journalists being kidnapped and this imbecile wants to sue a dry cleaners for £64million for a pair of pants?

He ended up paying ALL the legal fees and rightly so!
Hahahhahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahah

Answer 6

That was nothing but a waste of the courts time. He better tighten his pants and get ready for the lawsuit. The cleaners
are about to clean him out.

Answer 7

I agree there was no way the cleansers should have had to pay that amount of money. It is almost just as amazing they wasted time and money allowing it into court.

Answer 8

If anything this should have gone to small claims court. End of story.

Answer 9

i agree with it, this case should have been thrown out, the hole whole thing is dumb, sueing somebody becuase they lost your pants, its more funny then serious

Answer 10

I agree. He should pay.