Pearson Vs Chung Case Study

In Pearson v. Chung, the plaintiff deposits a pair of pants for alterations and when he gets them back after a few days of delay, he claims that the defendant lost the pair of pants and sues for inconvenience, cost of pants, mental anguish and unfair trade practices. He initially sues for $67 million but later for a lesser amount. The plaintiff claims that the defendant switched the original pair of pants with a similar one in order to escape the liability but the defendant denies it. Both the sides offer evidence in support of their claims and the decision in made in favour of the defendant.

The case Pearson v. Chung (herein after referred to as ‘the case’) is a tort reform case in the United States of America. It is a clear example of frivolous

Inside the shop, there was a sign that said “satisfaction guaranteed” which continued to be hung for the duration of the case. In July 2002, the plaintiff brought a pair of pants to be altered which was accepted by the defendant’s son, Jai, who was not an owner and when the plaintiff came back, Jai said that the pants were misplaced and that the owners would pay $150 for the pants, which was accepted by both the sides. The payment was made and when a few days later the plaintiff brought more clothes the defendants told him that they didn’t wish to accept his business. The plaintiff contested that he would sue them as it was a violation of CPPA to not accept his business. Later, the plaintiff received a call from Amanda Chun on behalf of the defendants asking the plaintiff to take his business elsewhere. Few days later, the plaintiff again took some clothes to Custom Cleaners and the defendants accepted them without any comment. After this, business continued without incident till April

The court took legal notification of Pearson's separation procedures, where he was sanctioned $12,000 by the trial court for making superfluous prosecution and debilitating his wife, Rhonda Van Lowe, and her legal advisor with disbarment. The CPPA violation was struck down for being too illogical and having an unlimited view of “satisfaction guaranteed” as it is suppose to be seen as a reasonable customer would interpret it as observed in Campbell Music Co. v. Singer .

In July 11, 2007 the plaintiff made an appeal in the trial court saying that the judge had made a fundamental legal error and failed to address the legal claims of the case but this was rejected. On September 10, 2008 the appellate court agreed to hear the case again and the three judge bench ended up rejecting it. The plaintiff further went to appeal to the nine judge bench of the court of appeals and ended up being rejected again. One last option for the plaintiff was to ask the Supreme Court to weigh in but the 90 day deadline for appealing to the supreme court had