I’m sure by now you’ve heard about Roy Pearson, the numbnuts judge in DC who’s suing his dry cleaners for $54 million because they misplaced his pants.
Why does he think he’s entitled to all that cash from the Chungs, who own the dry cleaners? Here’s a trial excerpt, as he’s being questioned by Judge Judith Bartnoff:
Pearson has argued that the Chungs committed fraud by posting a sign that read, “Satisfaction Guaranteed.”
He told Bartnoff that the Chungs had to be held to account for making such a claim.
“Your position is that ‘Satisfaction Guaranteed’ means they have to satisfy whatever you demand, with no limitations, absolutely unconditionally?” Bartnoff asked, according to The Washington Post.
“That’s correct,” Pearson replied.
“I have grave doubts about that,” said the judge.
Now, we all know that most times, “satisfaction guaranteed” is just another moronic advertising cliche. And no, it’s not always specific as to what the guarantee is, or what ensures someone’s satisfaction.
But clients are driven by fear–especially of $54 million lawsuits–so that’s why the legal department picks apart ad copy, and why clients are so often afraid so say anything substantial.