The presiding judge has now ruled. Reported in Washington Post
the judge found that there is "nothing in the law" to support the foundation of Pearson's case, the notion that a sign saying "Satisfaction Guaranteed" is an absolute, unconditional guarantee that the merchant will do anything and everything a customer demands to create satisfaction. To the contrary, Bartnoff said, the law is clear that any claim of an unfair trade practice is limited to what a reasonable person would expect.
Bartnoff clearly had little patience for Pearson's theory of the case.
"No one other than Mr. Pearson ever has complained about the 'Satisfaction Guaranteed' sign or suggested that it is misleading in any way," Bartnoff wrote of Soo Chung's testimony.
The judge dismissed the bulk of Pearson's case in a single sentence, noting that all of the witnesses he brought to the two-day trial who claimed they had had problems with Custom Cleaners amounted to squat: "It may be that those situations could have been handled better by the defendants, but the Court does not find that they in any way establish that the defendants had no intention of attempting to satisfy their customers."
Dry cleaner Jin Chung with the trousers at the centre of the $US54 million lawsuit.
I'm catching up on episodes of Heroes tonight that I've missed.