Melbourne tribunal rejects mother’s claim over daughter’s $700 hair extensions
A Melbourne tribunal dismissed Bianca Chung’s claim for $800 against salon owner Claudia Giuliano over hair extensions supplied to Chung’s teenage daughter. The dispute centred on whether they had agreed to weft extensions, as Chung said, or tape extensions, which Giuliano said better suited the teenager’s habit of tying her hair back.
The daughter was 16 when she received the $700 service in May last year and said she became confused when tape extensions were applied but did not object. Two extensions later slipped, and Giuliano offered to reattach them free and, according to the article, offered to install weft extensions as a goodwill gesture. Chung alleged breach of contract and that the service was not fit for purpose; Giuliano argued her agreement was with the daughter and defended her work as professional.
In short
- VCAT dismissed a mother’s $800 claim over her daughter’s extensions.
- The dispute was over tape extensions versus weft extensions.
- The salon owner said tape extensions suited the teenager’s hairstyle needs.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Chung’s case is that the salon should have provided the weft extensions she says were agreed, and that extensions which slipped soon afterwards did not meet the standard a customer could reasonably expect from a $700 service. The daughter’s confusion when tape extensions were applied may support the concern that the choice was not clearly confirmed before work began.
The case against
Giuliano’s case is that tape extensions were a considered choice suited to the teenager’s habit of tying her hair back, and that the work was performed professionally. The daughter did not object at the appointment, and Giuliano offered to reattach the slipped extensions free and, according to the article, to install weft extensions as a goodwill gesture; Giuliano also disputed that Chung herself was the customer.
Explained simply
Hair extensions add length or volume by attaching extra hair to someone’s own. Weft extensions are sections of hair attached in strips, while tape extensions use small adhesive tabs; the choice can affect how the extensions sit and how the hair can be tied back.
Bianca Chung’s teenage daughter was 16 when she received the extensions from Melbourne salon owner Claudia Giuliano. Chung said she had agreed with Giuliano on weft extensions, while Giuliano said tape extensions were more suitable for the teenager’s hairstyle.
The disagreement raised questions about what had been agreed, who had entered into the arrangement and whether the service was suitable for its purpose. Consumer tribunals hear disputes of this kind and assess the evidence under consumer and contract rules.
Americas Business Markets World
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by Daily Mail as “Furious mum sues glamorous Oakleigh salon owner over teen daughter’s $700 hair extensions as row over what was really agreed ends in tribunal showdown”.