I've now had a chance to skim the D.C. Court of Appeals' opinion in Pearson v. Chung (PDF copy at the link below). It is surprisingly light on mockery or outrage about Pearson's pointless legal quest, although it is, unsurprisingly, unanimous.
The court notes that there is "ample support" for the proposition that a person's reliance on an allegedly fraudulent or misleading statement must be reasonable. It also finds that the trial judge simply showed "basic common sense" in rejecting Pearson's contrary (and unsupported) position, namely that posting a "Satisfaction Guaranteed" sign means that a merchant has to unconditionally meet a customer's demands for satisfaction, even if the customer demands an outrageous amount of money and even if the merchant knows the customer is mistaken or lying.
Pearson also had the even more basic problem that the trial judge just didn't believe him, or at least found his opponent "much more credible." The court cites from her opinion, in which she wrote:
The Court agrees with the plaintiff that the pants in the defendant’s possession do not appear to match the jacket to this burgundy and blue pinstriped suit. The Court will also accept that Mr. Pearson does not like cuffs on his pants. [He had argued that they couldn't be his pants because he doesn't like cuffs.] The plaintiff may well believe that he brought the pants to his burgundy and blue pinstriped suit to the defendants, but there also is strong evidence that he did not. The Court found Soo Chung to be very credible and her explanation that she recognized the disputed pants as belonging to Mr. Pearson because of the unusual belt inserts was much more credible than his speculation that she took a pair of unclaimed pants from the back of the store and altered them to match his measurements.