sutty27 Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 If that was the case it is difficult to imagine why, after protest, the hairdresser didn't cut the woman's hair. It would be the perfect opportunity to really make a dog's breakfast of the job, with no comeback whatsoever. This is the bit I don't get, when I am paying for someone to provide me with a service I want them to want to provide it, I wouldn't want to give money to someone that is being forced to provide the service because it every likely to be a poor service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 If that was the case it is difficult to imagine why, after protest, the hairdresser didn't cut the woman's hair. It would be the perfect opportunity to really make a dog's breakfast of the job, with no comeback whatsoever. Well, I suppose she could refuse to pay, and then stand outside telling people what a bad job he'd done... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sutty27 Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Well, I suppose she could refuse to pay, and then stand outside telling people what a bad job he'd done... But that would be against the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shef1985 Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 But that would be against the law. I think it would be a civil matter...much like that story a while back about the overcooked steak. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3325069/Police-send-riot-van-deal-overcooked-steak-dispute.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sutty27 Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 I think it would be a civil matter...much like that story a while back about the overcooked steak. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3325069/Police-send-riot-van-deal-overcooked-steak-dispute.html Civil law is still the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shef1985 Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Civil law is still the law. Quite. He would have to sue her. He couldn't call the police and expect them to do anything re making her pay. So he would curse her and move on with his life. He has provided a shoddy haircut, she got it free. Both end up winners :-p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 But that would be against the law. She would obviously be withholding payment for a breach of the implied contract which was a suitably skilled haircut. Nothing illegal about a civil contract disagreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sutty27 Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Quite. He would have to sue her. He couldn't call the police and expect them to do anything re making her pay. So he would curse her and move on with his life. He has provided a shoddy haircut, she got it free. Both end up winners :-p Suing costumers for non payment is very easy and inexpensive, walking out a shop without paying for the service that was provided is also theft. Theft Act 1978 1978 CHAPTER 31 Subject to subsection (3) below, a person who, knowing that payment on the spot for any goods supplied or service done is required or expected from him, dishonestly makes off without having paid as required or expected and with intent to avoid payment of the amount due shall be guilty of an offence. Any person may arrest without warrant anyone who is, or whom he, with reasonable cause, suspects to be, committing or attempting to commit an offence under this section. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Joker Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Exactamundo. Even Spearmint Rhino has no problem admitting women into their "gentlemen's clubs". hmmm . . . But do they allow men on the pole ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 1, 2016 Share Posted June 1, 2016 Suing costumers for non payment is very easy and inexpensive, walking out a shop without paying for the service that was provided is also theft. Theft Act 1978 1978 CHAPTER 31 Subject to subsection (3) below, a person who, knowing that payment on the spot for any goods supplied or service done is required or expected from him, dishonestly makes off without having paid as required or expected and with intent to avoid payment of the amount due shall be guilty of an offence. Any person may arrest without warrant anyone who is, or whom he, with reasonable cause, suspects to be, committing or attempting to commit an offence under this section. If the shop fails to provide a satisfactory service then it isn't theft, it's a contract dispute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts