You Sue. You Lose. You Pay.

You Sue. You Lose. You Pay.
The attached legal matter is a good example for the need of loser pays. You all have heard by now the case of this administrative judge suing this mom and pop cleaner for losing his pants. Now based off that last sentence, you might say, damn RF23, I'll sue a business that did not honor it's part of the contract. Now what makes a contract?
One, you need to have an "offer"...example, you are window shopping and you see a nice set of golf clubs. You want those golf clubs and want to see if you can get them at a reasonable price. The business is holding still, on surprisingly a good deal and cheaper deal for you. You like the price and willilng to pay the offer price...

Two, and Two (a), You want the clubs, but you need to get it by the wife to see if this is a good purchase...So you "Consider" the price and whether it's a good purchase for your household finances... the wife says cool you can have them, but don't expect nothing except her for your anniversary....Two (a) you "Accept" the reasonable price of the clubs and make "tender payment for the clubs." You have just fulfilled a contract

Offer + Consideration + Acceptance + Delivery = contract

Now, it's not over, the seller has some responsibility, he has to make good on his product. In this case, a set of golf clubs in which he sold for a good reasonable price....You take them home, pull out a nine iron and notice that the shaft is broken. You go back to the seller and inform them that the product is defective.....The seller has one option to fulfill the completion of the contract. He can "replace" the clubs with a good set after inspection or if he cannot fulfil his part of the contract, he has to return your acceptance, which was payment for the clubs.
Now in this cleaner lawsuit, the contract was broken by the mom and pop cleaners by losing the pants....
Offer= to perform laundry service at a reasonable price
Acceptance = Allowing the cleaners to perform whatever duty the cleaner offered. Pay for the cleaners to perform its duty and expect to have the articles back at a certain date.

Delivery= The cleaners did not perform this duty, due to the fact that they lost or damaged the article of clothing...

Remedy: The cleaner could elect to replace the article plus refund the owner of the pants, the price he paid to have the service done.

That should have happened in this case, but it didn't..the owner, a judge in this matter felt some type punitive damages should be rewarded for losing his pants....and initially sued for $67 million and then was gracious enough to drop it down to $54 million. The presiding the judge rightfully dismissed the case and this is where my arguement comes in...

I believe if you sue someone on a bullbleep case, you should pay if you lose! everything from court costs, administrative fees, attorney fees, litigation support fees i.e. paralegal, secretary all that!!!

Now fortunately, the judge ruled that the plaintiff in this case, has to pay court fees and is looking into other fees mentioned above...my response is why the hell not!

Article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070625/ap_on_re_us/67_million_pants

Additional: By the way, this same practice is used in Britain...