Package included capita extension, coloring and progressive brushing; professional still stained the consumer’s hair during the dyeing process
The Court of Justice of federal District and Territories ordered a hairdresser to pay compensation of BRL 1,000 for moral damages and refund BRL 800 to a client. The consumer purchased a BRL 2,000 hair combo that included dyeing, placing mega hair and performing a progressive brush, but only the coloring was delivered. According to the client, half of the amount paid as a down payment, before the service. She narrated that on the day scheduled for the capita extension application, only the dye and progressive were supposedly made. Images attached to the process, however, maintain that the straightening products were not applied, since the structure of the hair was not altered. The mega hair, even after successive rescheduling, was never placed.
Before going to court, the consumer tried to make a deal with the professional. The proposal provided for a partial refund of the amounts paid for the services. She claims that only the first installment, of R$ 200, was paid. When confronted with the plaintiff’s allegations, the defendant neither contested nor presented evidence to the contrary. “The images attached and the term of agreement [firmado entre as partes] confer verisimilitude to the author’s statements”, pointed out the judge of the Special Civil and Criminal Court of São Sebastião.
The magistrate then determined that the hairdresser must reimburse the consumer the amount of R$ 800 and pay the amount of R$ 1 thousand for the moral damages borne by the author. “The service provider is liable for quality defects that make them unsuitable for consumption or reduce their value, as well as for those resulting from the disparity with the indications contained in the offer or advertising message”, the judge wrote in her decision. “Anyone looking for a beauty professional to put on a mega-hair does not expect to leave the place with hair dyed in a color that does not match what was expected. […]. The alleged facts caused some shock to the applicant, who had her hair stained and had to redo the dye and the intended service in a different place, which certainly caused her emotional shock capable of characterizing indemnifiable moral damage ”, justified the magistrate.