charlotte366
New Member
Oh dear, they have since been in touch and are still pursuing the claim against my salon. They are now saying that as the customer came through to the salon phone and the appointment made through the phone then the customer is the liability of the salon. I have looked into it and if the customer was told who the treatment was with, then that becomes a verbal contract not with the salon but between said therapist and customer. The contract then being cemented further when she came in and signed the customer card. The only 2 names on the card being therapist and customer...no mention of the salon. Therefore the contract was between therapist and customer. A written contract supersedes a verbal.
Basically the solicitors are now saying nobody else can take a call on behalf of the customer without becoming liable.
Also they claim its irrelevant who did the treatment! Thats just plain ludicrous!! The whole claim stems from the treatment so obviously its relevant who performed the treatment.
Now though they say I can make a counter claim to save it going to court.
I personally think they are trying it on but I just hope Im right x :|
I wonder if the claimants legal advisors are viewing this as an agency arrangement? for example the principal is the therapist but she operates within your salon so you are acting as an agent for her? By not telling the customer that the therapist was solely self employed the average person walking in of the street believes that they are customers of the "salon" not specifically customers of a therapist. If I walked into a salon in the street then I would assume anyone working there was an employee unless I was told otherwise? If this is the route they are going down then they may be able to sue the salon, but equally you would be able to sue the therapist.
I agree with the comments above that if you are self employed than you are deemed personally liable and any personal assets can be claimed in addition to those of the salon.
However I would be asking what kind of reaction she had, any evidence of reaction etc and whether it had any lasting damage effect, if it was a tinting/chemical treatment was she advised to have patch tests etc, did she fill out a new customer form detailing health problems/allergies etc. this will give an indication of the value of the claim, ie it may just have been short term and non serious and the claim value may be low and it may be easier to dare I say settle it rather than incurr costs and then counterclaim on the therapist, however if it was a serious reaction with permanent damage then you may be better to try to fight it?
It may be worth considering a counterclaim against the therapist, she may have stopped trading but she is still liable?