National Clothesline

A simple “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign posted in their call office landed Soo and Jin Nam Chung, owners of Custom Cleaners in Washington, DC, in a legal thicket from which they are yet to emerge.

Most people might think that a retailer’s guarantee of satisfaction would extend to replacement or compensation for goods lost or damaged or no-charge for a service inadequately rendered. For one of the Chungs ’ customers, however, satisfaction could be obtained only by a judgment of $67 million against them for violating consumer protection laws.

The widely publicized case began in May, 2005, when Roy Pearson, who had been a customer at Custom Cleaners since 1999, brought trousers to the Chungs ’ store for alteration. When he returned several days later, he claimed that the pants Soo Chung presented to him were not his. She was certain that they were, having performed the alterations herself.

Pearson left without the pants, then wrote a letter to the Chungs demanding payment of $1,150 to cover the lost pants and to fulfill their promise of “Satisfaction Guaranteed.” He threatened that if they did not pay he would pursue legal remedies for multiple violations of consumer protection laws and fraudulent contract and seek no less than $50,000 in compensatory and punitive damages and attorney ’s fees.

The Chungs did not pay because they were confident that the pants they had were the very ones Pearson had brought in for alteration.

During the course of two years of litigation, Pearson’s demand inflated to $67 million, which he scaled back to $54 million before the case went to trial in June. The pants themselves were no longer the issue. Pearson had decided that the satisfaction guaranteed sign was an unconditional warranty that required the Chungs to honor any claim by any customer, without limitation, based on the customer ’s determination of whatever would make him “satisfied.”

Pearson contended that the Chungs failure to honor an unconditional guarantee to the extent that would satisfy him constituted an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Procedures Act. He said the defendants were liable to him for seven different violations of the act for every day that Custom Cleaners was open over a period of several years.

The Chungs subsequently removed the “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign. No one other than Pearson had complained about it or suggested it was in any way misleading, but they wanted to avoid further litigation, given that this one case had already taken a heavy toll on the family.

Soo Chung told the court that she understood the sign to mean that if a customer had a problem, Custom Cleaners would do its best to fix it — for example, to redo an alteration or to dryclean an item again — and if the problem could not be fixed, Custom Cleaners would compensate the customer for the value of the clothing.

During the trial in June before Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff, witnesses presented by Pearson himself seemed to agree more with the Chungs ’ interpretation than with Pearson’s. They all testified that they would expect the cleaner to pay for the value of the lost or damaged clothing if the item could not be repaired.

Judge Bartnoff ultimately sided with the Chungs. She wrote in her decision, “The plaintiff’s claims regarding the ‘Satisfaction Guaranteed’ sign are premised on his interpretation that the sign is an unconditional and unlimited warranty of satisfaction to the customer, as determined solely by the customer, without regard to the facts or to any notion of reasonableness. ”

“Nothing in the law supports that position,” she concluded.

“A reasonable consumer would not interpret ‘Satisfaction Guaranteed’ to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer’s unreasonable demands or to accede to demands that the merchant has reasonable grounds to dispute, ” Bartnoff added.

Bartnoff ruled in favor of the Chungs and ordered Pearson to pay court costs of about $5,000. A reasonable person might think that would be the end of a legal ordeal that had gone on for more than two years, but the case goes on.

The Chungs initially said they would go to court to get Pearson to pay their legal bills of nearly $83,000.

They had Bartnoff’s blessing. Awarding attorneys’ fees against a consumer plaintiff would be unusual, she wrote. “But this is an unusual case, in which the plaintiff attempted to take what was at best a misunderstanding about one pair of pants and expand it to a claim of $67 million, based on legal theories that — once they clearly were articulated — were unsupported in fact or in law.”

Widespread publicity of the case generated considerable sympathy for the Chungs and got the wheels of the tort reform movement rolling, resulting in fund-raising efforts on the Chung ’s behalf.

A July 24 fundraiser, hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, pulled in about $70,000. Other contributions went a long way toward covering most of the rest of their legal costs and business losses.

In mid-August, the Chungs withdrew their demand that Pearson pay their legal expenses.

“With their losses and expenses now almost completely recouped, all the defendants want to do is make this case go away, ” Christopher Manning, attorney for the Chung family, wrote in the seven-page motion. “Defendants’ lives have been devastated and they want nothing more than to quietly return to running their drycleaning business. ”

The Chungs reserved their right to seek attorneys’ fees for any further legal proceedings. It is fortunate that they did. The day after filing the motion, Pearson filed official notice that he would appeal Bartnoff ’s June verdict against him.

“The Chungs have done everything possible to put this nightmare behind them and return to their normal lives, ” Manning responded.

“They have won resoundingly at trial, raised donations from gracious private donors to pay for their litigation costs, let Mr. Pearson off the hook for personally paying their expenses and extended an olive branch to Mr. Pearson in hopes that he would end this matter and not appeal. ”

Even if the Chungs were to win a judgment against Pearson for their legal fees, it ’s not clear he would be able to pay. His $100,000-a-year job as an administrative law judge in the District of Columbia is on the line.

He was appointed to the position in April 2005. But the appointment was for only two years. He has not been hearing cases since May and, last month, the city commission that reviews the performance of administrative law judges notified Pearson that he may not be reappointed.

In addition to his world-famous kerfuffle with the Chungs, Pearson has tangled with his boss, Chief Administrative Law Judge Tyrone Butler.

Less than three months after starting work in 2005, Pearson sent a 14-page letter to then-Mayor Anthony Williams urging him “to inquire into whether corrupt ethics, demonstrably poor judgment and failed leadership constitute ‘good cause’ to remove Chief Judge Butler.”

More recently, Pearson allegedly sent a series of e-mails within the administrative law staff disparaging the chief judge, calling him “evil” and mean-spirited.

In a May 22 letter, Butler recommended that Pearson not be reappointed. Pearson’s behavior on and off the bench “brings discredit to the judiciary” and “he has not lived up to the ethical canons that govern the judiciary,” Butler wrote.




						This customer was impossible to satsify



						A simple “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign posted in their call office landed Soo and Jin Nam Chung, owners of Custom Cleaners in Washington, DC, in a legal thicket from which they are yet to emerge. Most people might think that a retailer’s guarantee of satisfaction would extend to replacement or compensation for goods lost or damaged or no-charge for a service inadequately rendered. For one of the Chungs ’ customers, however, satisfaction could be obtained only by a judgment of $67 million against them for violating consumer protection laws. The widely publicized case began in May, 2005, when Roy Pearson, who had been a customer at Custom Cleaners since 1999, brought trousers to the Chungs ’ store for alteration. When he returned several days later, he claimed that the pants Soo Chung presented to him were not his. She was certain that they were, having performed the alterations herself. Pearson left without the pants, then wrote a letter to the Chungs demanding payment of $1,150 to cover the lost pants and to fulfill their promise of “Satisfaction Guaranteed.” He threatened that if they did not pay he would pursue legal remedies for multiple violations of consumer protection laws and fraudulent contract and seek no less than $50,000 in compensatory and punitive damages and attorney ’s fees. The Chungs did not pay because they were confident that the pants they had were the very ones Pearson had brought in for alteration. During the course of two years of litigation, Pearson’s demand inflated to $67 million, which he scaled back to $54 million before the case went to trial in June. The pants themselves were no longer the issue. Pearson had decided that the satisfaction guaranteed sign was an unconditional warranty that required the Chungs to honor any claim by any customer, without limitation, based on the customer ’s determination of whatever would make him “satisfied.” Pearson contended that the Chungs failure to honor an unconditional guarantee to the extent that would satisfy him constituted an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Procedures Act. He said the defendants were liable to him for seven different violations of the act for every day that Custom Cleaners was open over a period of several years. The Chungs subsequently removed the “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign. No one other than Pearson had complained about it or suggested it was in any way misleading, but they wanted to avoid further litigation, given that this one case had already taken a heavy toll on the family. Soo Chung told the court that she understood the sign to mean that if a customer had a problem, Custom Cleaners would do its best to fix it — for example, to redo an alteration or to dryclean an item again — and if the problem could not be fixed, Custom Cleaners would compensate the customer for the value of the clothing. During the trial in June before Superior Court Judge Judith Bartnoff, witnesses presented by Pearson himself seemed to agree more with the Chungs ’ interpretation than with Pearson’s. They all testified that they would expect the cleaner to pay for the value of the lost or damaged clothing if the item could not be repaired. Judge Bartnoff ultimately sided with the Chungs. She wrote in her decision, “The plaintiff’s claims regarding the ‘Satisfaction Guaranteed’ sign are premised on his interpretation that the sign is an unconditional and unlimited warranty of satisfaction to the customer, as determined solely by the customer, without regard to the facts or to any notion of reasonableness. ” “Nothing in the law supports that position,” she concluded. “A reasonable consumer would not interpret ‘Satisfaction Guaranteed’ to mean that a merchant is required to satisfy a customer’s unreasonable demands or to accede to demands that the merchant has reasonable grounds to dispute, ” Bartnoff added. Bartnoff ruled in favor of the Chungs and ordered Pearson to pay court costs of about $5,000. A reasonable person might think that would be the end of a legal ordeal that had gone on for more than two years, but the case goes on. The Chungs initially said they would go to court to get Pearson to pay their legal bills of nearly $83,000. They had Bartnoff’s blessing. Awarding attorneys’ fees against a consumer plaintiff would be unusual, she wrote. “But this is an unusual case, in which the plaintiff attempted to take what was at best a misunderstanding about one pair of pants and expand it to a claim of $67 million, based on legal theories that — once they clearly were articulated — were unsupported in fact or in law.” Widespread publicity of the case generated considerable sympathy for the Chungs and got the wheels of the tort reform movement rolling, resulting in fund-raising efforts on the Chung ’s behalf. A July 24 fundraiser, hosted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, pulled in about $70,000. Other contributions went a long way toward covering most of the rest of their legal costs and business losses. In mid-August, the Chungs withdrew their demand that Pearson pay their legal expenses. “With their losses and expenses now almost completely recouped, all the defendants want to do is make this case go away, ” Christopher Manning, attorney for the Chung family, wrote in the seven-page motion. “Defendants’ lives have been devastated and they want nothing more than to quietly return to running their drycleaning business. ” The Chungs reserved their right to seek attorneys’ fees for any further legal proceedings. It is fortunate that they did. The day after filing the motion, Pearson filed official notice that he would appeal Bartnoff ’s June verdict against him. “The Chungs have done everything possible to put this nightmare behind them and return to their normal lives, ” Manning responded. “They have won resoundingly at trial, raised donations from gracious private donors to pay for their litigation costs, let Mr. Pearson off the hook for personally paying their expenses and extended an olive branch to Mr. Pearson in hopes that he would end this matter and not appeal. ” Even if the Chungs were to win a judgment against Pearson for their legal fees, it ’s not clear he would be able to pay. His $100,000-a-year job as an administrative law judge in the District of Columbia is on the line. He was appointed to the position in April 2005. But the appointment was for only two years. He has not been hearing cases since May and, last month, the city commission that reviews the performance of administrative law judges notified Pearson that he may not be reappointed. In addition to his world-famous kerfuffle with the Chungs, Pearson has tangled with his boss, Chief Administrative Law Judge Tyrone Butler. Less than three months after starting work in 2005, Pearson sent a 14-page letter to then-Mayor Anthony Williams urging him “to inquire into whether corrupt ethics, demonstrably poor judgment and failed leadership constitute ‘good cause’ to remove Chief Judge Butler.” More recently, Pearson allegedly sent a series of e-mails within the administrative law staff disparaging the chief judge, calling him “evil” and mean-spirited. In a May 22 letter, Butler recommended that Pearson not be reappointed. Pearson’s behavior on and off the bench “brings discredit to the judiciary” and “he has not lived up to the ethical canons that govern the judiciary,” Butler wrote.
	SEPTEMBER 2007 This Issue Back Issues Classified Ads Dateline Resources Allied Trades Associations Instruction ABOUT US Home