Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Pearson v. Chung, also known as the "$54 million pants" case, is a 2007 civil case decided in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in which Roy Pearson, then an administrative law judge, sued his local dry cleaning establishment for $54 million in damages after the dry cleaners allegedly lost his pants.
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
Dry cleaning is any cleaning process for clothing and textiles using a solvent other than water. Clothes are instead soaked in a water-free liquid solvent (usually non-polar , as opposed to water which is a polar solvent ).
The chemist Sylvia Stoesser (1901–1991) had suggested tetrachloroethylene to be used in dry cleaning as an alternative to highly flammable dry cleaning solvents such as naphtha. [ 14 ] It is also used to degrease metal parts in the automotive and other metalworking industries, usually as a mixture with other chlorocarbons.
If you are a former customer, you'll have to submit a claim form. You can do that online through the settlement website , or you can have a form mailed to you by calling the claims administrator ...
Avenues for possible consumer compensation over and above direct costs will vary depending on the specific laws governing consumer trade protection and the cause of recall. When the recall is completed, the business will generally debrief to identify issues in the recall process and put in measures to prevent further similar recalls.
Chung, Roy Pearson, a Washington, D.C. judge, sued a dry cleaning business for $67 million for allegedly losing a pair of his pants. This case has been cited as an example of frivolous litigation. [13] According to Pearson, the dry cleaners lost his pants (which he brought in for a $10.50 alteration) and refused his demands for a large refund.
It has traditionally been a requirement of equity that no relief can be granted unless there is irreparable injury. This requirement, commonly called the "irreparable injury rule", has been the subject of sustained academic criticism, especially by remedies scholar Douglas Laycock, who has argued at length that the rule does not actually explain the decisions of courts in the United States. [2]