But that's a moot point, since the pants don't cost $1000.
The pants are not the entire suit.Pearson asked the cleaners for the full price of the suit: more than $1,000.
I read the comments on the article. One person actually supported the judge (although not for that amount of compensation - they felt $10 000 was "reasonable"). I disagree with them for this particular case, but their opinion came from past experiences involving dry cleaners losing or damaging their (expensive) clothes and not offering any kind of compensation. I can see how that would be frustrating, since the average person isn't going to be willing to pay the court fees to sue over an article of clothing or two, even if they were expensive.
This case isn't about that, though. He didn't even ask them for the cost of the pants alone - if he had done that and threatened to sue if they refused, of course they would have paid him. After all, they've offered him three settlements, all much larger than the cost of the entire suit that the pants belonged to.
What kills me is that this is so obviously an intent to ruin these people, and yet part of where the $65 million comes from is him having to go to the next nearest dry cleaners, since he says he's never going back to the Chungs. Can he even begin to justify that? It's his choice whether or not he uses the nearest dry cleaner - if he doesn't want to, why should they pay him for NOT giving them his business? That's not how it works.
I hope he gets laughed out of court. If only. :/
*points finger at screen* LOOOOOOOOL!!!!
yeah the idea of him spending more to go to another place is absurd. what happens if the dry cleaners move to a different town? do they get sued for moving away from him? >.> crazy~!, just crazy
( >'o')>~~~ *kirby uses lightning bolt at him*