It seems silly to me, but understand why, a dry cleaners would offer X amount of services to anyone after losing an article of clothing... Why on Earth would someone want to continue to do business at a place that has proven to lose things???
He doesn't deserve a new pants. He could have picked it up and forgot to handover the ticket. Then he came back and said where is my pants? lol fake as fuck
Sure, but for a $600 suit the jacket will always be $400 ish and the pants $200 ish. If it’s a one year old suit he would almost certainly be able to order a replacement pair of pants. TBH he should have bought two pairs of pants with a suit anyway because the pants are the thing that wear out, not the jacket. Anyone who knows what they’re doing with new suits does that. This guy brought his mommy to court, so it’s not surprising he didn’t know.
The law that says a business can put a "contract" on the back of a receipt without getting ANY acknowledgement from the customer and the customer is supposed to abide by it is a ridiculous law. Unfair and should be changed. But we know our lawmakers favor business and corporations above all else. We don't really have our constitutional Republic anymore.
I don't think the comment was posted in a manner that said he didn't like the policy. He was asking a hypothetical question. Answering it would be typing a "yes," and that would answer his question. He didn't say anything about not liking the policy, which I'm sure no one would be ok with it. He was just clarifying the defendants policy that should be changed. He is right, the cleaners could be stealing a lot of clothes that they know are very expensive because they don't want to spend that much of their own money on them. If they steal them and tell the client that they lost their clothes, they only end up paying 10X what they were going to charge the customer. Sounds like a pretty good hustle to get a lot of nice things that the cleaners set the price and therefore set the amount that the customer will receive when they pick up their items and are told they cannot find them. In this case, it appears that the pants were of much more value than the shirt, and so they didn't want them. The only item they wanted and just happened to come up missing (the pants) are probably hanging in the defendants closet.
The defendant is disgusting and smug about his irresponsibility. He should have paid for the plaintiff’s pants. Defendant deserves a bad review because he did lose the man’s pants.
He did. He paid $150. Dafuq you living under a rock? Watch the full video people making a stupid comment again you clown. lol A new suit pants from Hickey Freeman is $200. The Jacket is $400. Scamming plantiff wanted the shop owner to buy him a new suit.
Maybe he should have BOUGHT new pants and showed the receipt for $150-200. Instead of asking for $600 for a whole new suit. Not sure why kind of scam these yt people trying to pull off. But good thing he didn't win. Cheating lying albinos!
That does not seem right at all. They even acknowledge it's completely their fault. How is it they cannot be responsible for losing something that valuable, if they literally take it on in the first place? So if I taken something that's $10,000 and they choose to just keep it, all they would have to give me is $137? 💯 responsibility and their fault. What keeps them from just taking stuff home and getting clothes for cheap? There should be some concept in the law that says, the contract does not reasonably mitigate damages.
The law presumes that parties entering contracts are bound by the contract, generally absent misrepresentation. It's kinda fundamental to having contracts. If all contracts could be torn up later when you're unhappy, there's no clarity/confidence in the contracts. Theoretically, if you don't like that cleaner's terms, go find one who doesn't limit their liability (good luck on that, by the way). Think of it this way---cleaners would need to charge A LOT more when they accept high value items if it worked the way you wanted. Maybe some folks would be okay with that, but that's not where the market has evolved to.
@@newsflash7609 Exactly. That's what I think people are missing is the liability with cleaners. Things get misplaced often, it happens. They could find another cleaners, but I highly doubt there is a cleaners that says they will pay in full of the item lost.
@@newsflash7609 That makes sense. But I have also seen contact cases won't because the contract itself wasn't reasonable, or lawful itself. I guess there's a gray line in there and it seems like this should cross it to me. But I do see your point. Thank you!
@@trekgirl65 I thanked for the good point. Seems odd to me but I agreed with the thought I had not considered myself. Perhaps insults are best saved for someone actually not paying attention, like yourself.
He can literally go into a suit store and get a replacement pair for a fraction of the cost of a new suit or you can go on eBay and get a replacement. (This episode was taped pre FB marketplace, offerup, etc). Especially for men, finding replacement pants is SUPER easy because all you need to know is the inseam, outseam and waist.
The business owner should carry business insurance with the Care, custody, and Conrtrol rider attached to the policy. The customer should have made a claim against not only the business, but also the insurance carrier.
Why did defendant have to pay court costs, he was offering to pay what ended up being the final judgement anyway and the plaintiff refused it. Sounds like a plaintiff problem not a defendant problem.
Everyone in the comments are saying not to do business with this shady dry cleaning business but everyone is forgetting the slimy shady owner was also smart because the name of the dry cleaners was never given so how can anyone boycott a company when you don't know what company it is? All we know it was a dry cleaners; what are you going to do protest every dry cleaner in that city until you find the right one?
I don't really get how the back of the receipt is where they write the policy. You get a receipt AFTER you've dropped something off. So that means you drop something off and THEN they tell you the policy. That doesn't seem fair to me.
I use to work at hickey freeman and yes its hard to match color when there made at the same time and your trying at a later date to get the same pants or coat.
Well he ought to go dumpster diving and find some worn out old clothes and possible a dress or suit and take them to the cleaners and then never show back up. LOL
wrong, she did not gloss over the case. You did and missed the point. And in certain situations, in court, you can get a refund when there are proven damages and missing articles. She did not lie. And the defendant did.
@@trekgirl65 I didn't say she glossed over the case, I said she glossed over the review the plantiff left online for the business. He lied when he said the company didn't offer a refund. They did, he just wanted more. That's defamation. She was dismissive and I thought that deserved more attention.
Gotta remember that these cases are actually much longer than what's cut down and edited for us to see. They have to fit several cases in a one hour segment
Can someone find out where this business is and publish it ? Any man of character would have given the guy $350 in order to do what's right personally and for the business reputation.
He pays a fortune for a suit and the pockets in the pants fray, if I was paying that much I would take them straight back to the store where I bought them.
Another one of those cases, like 99% of them. This show makes me feel like the biggest unique freak misfit. Who pays that much for a pair of pants? The most I have ever spent on pants is $70, and that happened once. I have bought a couple in the $30-$40 range, and the rest of the time I find a good sale or go to the thrift store. The pants that cost over $30 were also on sale. Those $70 ones were like $200 or something at full price.
What the heck is that supposed to mean? How is he privileged? He wanted them to reimburse him for less than half the cost of his one year old suit which is more than fair. I think you can’t afford what he can and you are bitter.
Once again she is wrong in relation to the review. He alleges they lose items and then refuse to reimburse, however they did offer to reimburse - just not to the tune he was seeking. She should have ordered the review to be amended to reflect the situation, or remove it - as it stands it's defamatory as it's untrue.
This loud mouth 304 always gives the plantiff a hard time .y'all loss his item. And he had to come back few times .why he had to take a full loss because of someone else mess up smh. That.s why jm.will never recover from to her new show.s is low rateing.😅 Karma is a 🤦🤦🤦ch. Never win when you play dirty. The plaintiff should have gotten all what he ask for. Itch. 😮
