Former U.S. administrative law judge Roy Pearson famously sued a local dry cleaner over a lost pair of pants. Among other things, he sought $2 million for mental distress and discomfort as well as $15 000 for a rental car he said he would need in order to drive to another dry cleaner outside his neighbourhood. Pearson claimed, for example, that the dry cleaner owners committed fraud by not living up to the sign in their window that stated “Satisfaction guaranteed.” According to Pearson, this guarantee was unconditional, he was by no means satisfied, and the defendants had thereby committed an unfair trade practice. How should a judge interpret the “satisfaction guaranteed” sign?