Where is the harm?

On Wednesday, U S District Judge James Robertson, dismissed a lawsuit brought by a doctor against Kentucky Fried Chicken. Dr Arthur Hoyt brought suit against the restuarant chain for not informing it's customers of it's use of trans fats in the preparation of some of the foods it served.
Hoyt failed to show how he had been harmed by KFC's use of this fatty, artery-clogging ingredient and that was the major point that doomed his case. Hoyt also had claimed that customers have a growing understanding of the dangers posed by trans fats to their health.

"If customers are increasingly aware of trans fat, where do they expect to find it if not in fast food restaurants?" wrote Robertson.

This is in sharp contrast to a lawsuit filed by District of Columbia administrative hearings judge Roy Pearson, who is sueing the Chungs, South Korean immigrants who own and operate Custom Cleaners fo the "small" sum of 65 million dollars for a lost pair of pants. For two years Pearson, who is representing himself in the lawsuit, refused any kind of monetary settlement with the Chungs.
Pearson asked them for $1,000 the cost of replacing the whole suit but when the pants were found within a week, they refused to pay him. Since that date, Pearson has refused offers from the Chungs of up to $12,000. How may you ask has he been harmed to the tune of 65 million? It seems that part of his "harm" comes from having to now rent a car and travel more than four blocks from his residence to another dry cleaners and the rest of it lies with his interpretation of D C's consumer protection law.
He claims that two signs posted at Custom Cleaners : "Satisfaction Guaranteed " and "Same Day Service" amount to fraud and has used simple math to multiply 12 violations of the law by 1,200 days and arrived at the figure he is now sueing for. As for the "lost" pants..... they have been awaiting Pearson's arrival to claim them.
I applaud Robertson's case decision, there shouldn't be a reward for claiming fast food is bad for you.... it is a choice to eat there, possibly a poor one at that and to bring a lawsuit forth because of that is indeed frivalous. In the case of the missing pants...... it is far beyond frivalous and not only should it not even be heading to trial, Pearson has proven to me that he has little common sense and his ability to continue practising law should be questioned and challenged.
Sadly, the case of the Chung's is one that occurs far too often.... you may be correct, try and use common sense to rectify a situation but in the long run, you may face losing almost everything.
For more about the Chung's case, read