Hawkins v. McGee, 2007 Edition
Posted on March 3rd, 2007 by Kip
Now that you’ve read Hawkins v. McGee, and survived your first day of Contracts class, you’re ready to rule in this case:
Michael Duplessis loves Chicago so much that he wanted its nickname tattooed on his chest.But the idea went terribly awry in a North Side tattoo parlor: He left with the word “CHI-TONW” inked into his skin where “CHI-TOWN” should have been.
Now Duplessis is suing the business and the tattoo artist for monetary damages in the 2005 mess[.]
Ignore questions of “emotional distress” and focus just on the breach of contract claim.
What damages should the tattoo artist pay Mr. Duplessis?
Note that the article includes an online poll asking the same question.
(Via Overlawyered; but note that I’m not as quick as they are to dismiss the emotional distress claim as “frivolous.”)
Similar Posts:
- Linkfest: Frivolous Lawsuits are Perennials, Not Annuals
- More on Whether the West Virginia Miner Families Can Sue
- Is “Wrongful Good News” a Tort?
- More Buckley Anti-Hagiography
- On Suing for Being “Outed”
Filed under: Uncategorized
Damages should include the costs for providing the product as agreed to, in the location agreed to. This would presumably involve laser removal of the relevant ink and a correction to the contracted tattoo (never having had a tattoo added or removed, I'm just going by lay knowledge here).
Other damages? Time and suffering for the laser removal and correction, for any scarring on the chest resulting from the correction procedure.
Personally, I think the emotional distress would be more relevant if the tattoo could not be remedied, but from my limited understanding of tattooing, it should correctable.
Other emotional distress? Possibly. Did he attend a nationally televised Bear's game and rip open his shirt while the camera was on him? Without proofreading? Hmmmm…..