It might be convenient to summon a cleaning service with the tap of your smartphone, but police in New York City are warning that convenience could lead to theft after dozens of customers using the house-cleaning app Handy reported being burgled. [More]
cleaners
When Can You Ignore The "Dry Clean Only" Label?
By 6.16.09
Karl Huie’s family has been in the garment cleaning business since 1969, and since 2007 Huie has been offering “wet cleaning“—an eco-friendly alternative that uses water, soaps, and CO2. At the blog ecosalon, Huie provides some professional advice on which clothes are safest to wash at home, and when you should stick with dry cleaning, or at least professional cleaning.
Ric Romero Reports: Battle Of The Dishwashing Detergents
By 3.29.08
Consumer Reports cut through the greasy claims of competing dishwasher detergents to find out which one is best suited for Ric Romero’s “dirty dish-duty.” The winner? Much like the Special Olympics, everyone won. Each detergent works fine if you scrub long enough. Efficiency comes with a price, and Dawn direct foam was the costliest and speediest of the twelve brands tested, followed closely by Ajax Lemon Dish Liquid.
New York Dry Cleaner Sues Disgruntled Customer For $300,000
By 10.13.07
Todd Layne Cleaners on the Upper East Side filed a $300,000 defamation suit against disgruntled former customer Evan Maloney. The dry cleaner decided to “vigorously defend” itself after Maloney hung ten posters in his building decrying Todd Layne’s horrible customer service. Maloney lists five grievances:
DC Judge Reconsiders Demands, Now Wants Only $54 Million For Misplaced Pants
By 6.9.07
You may remember Judge Roy “Fancy Pants” Pearson; he sued his Korean cleaners for $65 million after his pants were misplaced, claiming signs promising “Satisfaction Guaranteed” and “Same Day Service” constituted consumer fraud. Judge Fancy Pants has reconsidered his suit, and has reduced his demands to only $54 million. The cleaners’ attorney thinks Fancy Pants is being unreasonable:
Chris Manning, the Chungs’ attorney, says that can be considered fraud only if the signs misled a “reasonable” person. No reasonable person, he says, would interpret them to be an unconditional promise of satisfaction.
We think this is the perfect case to be adjudicated either by Judge Judy, or the Judge Judy Soundboard. — CAREY GREENBERG-BERGER
DC Judge Seeks $65 Million In Damages From Korean Cleaner
By 4.28.07
A DC judge has filed a $65 million suit against a Korean cleaner, claiming that signs promising “Satisfaction Guaranteed” and “Same Day Service” constitute consumer fraud. Roy Pearson was appointed to a DC judgeship, a job that requires a suit. The judge brought several suits to Custom Cleaners for alteration, but one pair of pants went missing. So the judge did what any reasonable DC judge might do; he sent the cleaner a different kind of suit: a law suit.
How does he get to $65 million? The District’s consumer protection law provides for damages of $1,500 per violation per day. Pearson started multiplying: 12 violations over 1,200 days, times three defendants. A pant leg here, a pant leg there, and soon, you’re talking $65 million.
The cleaner offered $12,000 to settle the case, but the judge refused. The original cost of the alteration: $10.50 — CAREY GREENBERG-BERGER
