Suing dry cleaners

[Johnp2]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Texas

Cleaners admitted to losing a garment of mine. I paid $180.00 for the garment (and still have the receipt).

My ticket for the dry-cleaning (on the back) has a disclaimer text that reads they are only respnosible for lost items up to 10 times the amount of dry-cleaning. This means $19.90.
I contacted the owner and I asked for $120.00 (deducting the amount based on time owned). He told me to "get lost." I don't view this disclaimer as a contract.

I am considering small claims court. My only concern is the disclaimer on my ticket indicating what they are liable for. Am I out of luck here? I would ask for a reasonable compensation amount for the garment, a refund for the dry-cleaning, and salary for missed work attending trial. Thanks

 

[dolebot]

You would be due the depreciated value of the garment. Small claims won't give you anything but that - and maybe the cost of the filing. I don't believe a disclaimer like that would hold up very well.

 

[seniorjudge]

Double post warning

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Texas

Cleaners admitted to losing a garment of mine. I paid $180.00 for the garment (and still have the receipt).

My ticket for the dry-cleaning (on the back) has a disclaimer text that reads they are only respnosible for lost items up to 10 times the amount of dry-cleaning. This means $19.90.
I contacted the owner and I asked for $120.00 (deducting the amount based on time owned). He told me to "get lost." I don't view this disclaimer as a contract.

I am considering small claims court. My only concern is the disclaimer on my ticket indicating what they are liable for. Am I out of luck here? I would ask for a reasonable compensation amount for the garment, a refund for the dry-cleaning, and salary for missed work attending trial. Thanks

https://forum.freeadvice.com/search.php?searchid=2096538

 

[Johnp2]

Yes

Yes it is a "double-post". Is this against the rules? I am merely seeking advice (per the forum's name). I'm unsure which is the correct forum to post.

Dolebot---thanks for your reply. I am happy to receive the depreciated value of the item. The item is relatively new, and I still have the receipt for it (believe it or not).

As mentioned, my concerns are:

1. The disclaimer on the back of the ticket. I cannot help but think if a merchant admits to "losing" a customers item (which they have), and the customer can provide a receipt for the item---fair market value should be compensated.

2. If the disclaimer holds up, can I question the dislcaimer itself? The exact wording on the disclaimer states, "...shall not exceed 10 times the amount to process the item." "Process" seems to be the key word here. This does not distinctly state that it is the price charged for dry-cleaning the item. "Processing" can include a multitude of things and because it is not distinctly defined, am curious if I can argue that as well.

Thanks again for your replies!

 

[dolebot]

If the disclaimer holds up, can I question the dislcaimer itself?

You can bring anything you want to the table. Whether it will fly or not is up to the law, and the judge.

 

[seniorjudge]

Yes it is a "double-post". Is this against the rules? I am merely seeking advice (per the forum's name). I'm unsure which is the correct forum to post.

Dolebot---thanks for your reply. I am happy to receive the depreciated value of the item. The item is relatively new, and I still have the receipt for it (believe it or not).

As mentioned, my concerns are:

1. The disclaimer on the back of the ticket. I cannot help but think if a merchant admits to "losing" a customers item (which they have), and the customer can provide a receipt for the item---fair market value should be compensated.

2. If the disclaimer holds up, can I question the dislcaimer itself? The exact wording on the disclaimer states, "...shall not exceed 10 times the amount to process the item." "Process" seems to be the key word here. This does not distinctly state that it is the price charged for dry-cleaning the item. "Processing" can include a multitude of things and because it is not distinctly defined, am curious if I can argue that as well.

Thanks again for your replies!

Double posting is quite rude.

 

[Zigner]

Just to be thorough I'm going to post this in both threads:

You will be bound by the disclaimer. If you didn't like it, you should have gone elsewhere.

 

[Johnp2]

Double posting is quite rude.

Ha! I'm sure most will get over it---just like they get over your snide comments.

Anyways, thanks for you "help". You obviously do not know the answer or elect to spend your time policing new members' behavior and pay no attention to your own.

 

[Dandy Don]

The disclaimer may be legal or may not be legal (might just be company policy) depending on what Texas state law says about business practices. You may want to try to review Texas law at findlaw.com or consult a business law attorney for an opinion about the disclaimer or talk to other local dry cleaners in the area to see (without identifying which particular dry cleaner you have the complaint against) to see if they have a similar policy or not.

 

[You Are Guilty]

Screw it, just sue for $54M.
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=3269485

 

[BL]

Screw it, just sue for $54M.
ABC News: Tearful Testimony in $54 Million Pants Lawsuit

And the guy still didn't / don't want to give up trying .

 

[dcatz]

I agree with dolebot’s premise and hope and expect that there is more latitude than Zigner suggests.

The OP’s disclaimer was part of a form contract. These are not the offer-and-acceptance-consideration–meeting-of the-minds contracts that were studied in law school. They’re the prepared, acceptance-by-conduct contracts that we enter into every day with dry cleaners, parking lots, film processors etc. Quantitative studies about such contracts have shown that Zigner (who is often spot on) in not right in this instance. It probably would have been close to impossible to go elsewhere and find a cleaner without something similar. Moreover, the OP probably didn’t become a party to the “contract” or even know the terms until the goods were released. In all likelihood, it was on the receipt. An argument that he “knowingly bargained” for them is not logically tenable.

The OP’s disclaimer is in a contract of adhesion and, while courts have seen fit to uphold contracts of adhesion, they have not done so if the contract or a part of it was unconscionable. In this instance, the form contract was not between merchants, but the UCC’s approach to the context may be helpful to the OP (assuming a case is made for the relatively small amount). Article 2, Section 2-302, which applies to the sale of goods, provides:
"(1) If the court as a matter of law finds the contract or any clause of the contract to have been unconscionable at the time it was made the court may refuse to enforce the contract, or it may enforce the remainder of the contract without the unconscionable clause, or it may so limit the application of any unconscionable clause as to avoid any unconscionable result."

Unlike the UCC, which has been codified, The Restatement (Second) of Contracts has not, but courts give it weight and cite to it, and it is in accord. Section 211 provides: "Where the other party has reason to believe that the party manifesting such assent would not do so if he knew that the writing contained a particular term, the term is not part of the agreement."

If that is not sufficiently persuasive, it seems to me that the OP has an additional arguments that, by its very nature, the cleaners is a bailee for hire and it would be contrary to public policy to permit it to limit its financial exposure for a failure of the duty of due care unless the bailor was informed of and agreed in advance to the limitation. Shippers allow you to pay extra for indemnification over and above their standard limits.

 

[BL]

Screw it, just sue for $54M.
ABC News: Tearful Testimony in $54 Million Pants Lawsuit

Here ya go YAG .

Appeals thown out .

The $54 million pants suit unravels again - CNN.com

 

[You Are Guilty]

BL, not quite over yet, he can still attempt to file a few more. Plus, did you see this part:

Pearson was taken off the bench in May 2007 while the lawsuit was pending and was not reappointed as an administrative law judge when his term expired.

He filed a federal lawsuit in May 2008 to get his government job back, accusing city government and others of an "unlawful demotion and subsequent termination."

 

[BL]

BL, not quite over yet, he can still attempt to file a few more. Plus, did you see this part:

I read it .

This Judge alleged that he was down on his money , when he took the pants to the cleaners .

Talk about wanting something for nothing .

These poor folks are down to one cleaner from three ...