Refusing to give receipts

[BobR317]

Jurisdiction

California

I had a tattoo done and during the final unpaid visit, the artist added details I specifically told them not to add. I became upset and asked for copies of my past receipts. The manager of the shop realized I wanted the receipts so I could sue them and they refused to give them to me. What can I do? Also, I'm not sure who to sue. The artists operate like hair stylists, they rent space in a shop. Do I sue the shop or the artist?

Thank you

 

[army judge]

What can I do?

There is very little you can do today to obtain a receipt for a service paid for in cash IF the merchant doesn't wish to accommodate you.

Going forward you can ask for a receipt (or inquire about same) before you fork over your cash.

You can always pay for services with a money order or credit card.
If the merchant desires ONLY cash payments, perhaps you might seek a more accommodating merchant, after all, it is YOUR money and YOUR choice!

You might wish to ask about receipts BEFORE you arrange services, that way you might be able to avoid "mano e mano" matches in the future.

Do I sue the shop or the artist?

You should bring a lawsuit against the party you allege to have harmed you.

Some people would say sue BOTH and let the judge sort it out.

Good luck.

 

[BobR317]

Thank you very much. I definitely will be more cautious about receipts going forward.

I actually found proof I was there so I might not necessarily need the receipts for the suit. I found, in my bank statements, documented withdrawals from the ATM in their shop. It seems it would be hard for them to argue that I drove an hour from my house to use a specific ATM, in their shop, three separate times for no reason.

I already filed a suit in small claims court against the artist before I really thought about who I should name in the suit. It's crazy, I was contacted by Judge Judy's team to appear on her show or her sister show about this. It seems I could drop the suit against the artist and file a new suit naming both the artist and the shop as plaintiffs and let the judge sort it out. I didn't know it was an option to let the judge figure out who is responsible. If I drop this suit I can't go on Judge Judy, which actually has some nice perks.

Another thing I could do, I think, is file a separate suit against the shop for punitive damages from the emotional distress caused by them from maliciously refusing to give me the receipts or even tell me who the owner was (the shop manager told me she didn't know who she worked for). I'm still learning about punitive damages, but it seems reasonable. I'm a disabled vet with documented psychological issues from the service resulting in issues with perseveration. The VA has documented my psychological trouble caused by this situation with the tattoo so there's evidence that the emotional distress is real.

 

[Tax Counsel]

It seems I could drop the suit against the artist and file a new suit naming both the artist and the shop as plaintiffs and let the judge sort it out. I didn't know it was an option to let the judge figure out who is responsible.

You might be able to simply add the shop as a defendant to your present lawsuit. Note that if the tatoo artist is truly an independent contractor — just rents the space from the shop and is not controlled by the shop like an employee would — then you'd have no claim against the shop for this.

Another thing I could do, I think, is file a separate suit against the shop for punitive damages from the emotional distress caused by them from maliciously refusing to give me the receipts or even tell me who the owner was (the shop manager told me she didn't know who she worked for).

That would not succeed. In order to win a case for emotional distress, the acts of the defendant have to be pretty extreme; something well outside the normal bounds of human conduct. A shop refusing to give you receipts or tell who the owner is might be frustrating to a customer but that sort of thing happens frequently and is not the kind of extremely outrageous conduct that would give rise to an emotional distress claim. As a fairly recent California court case explains:

A defendant's conduct is considered to be outrageous if "it is so ' " 'extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.' " ' " (Hughes v. Pair, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 1051, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 636, 209 P.3d 963; see Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 965, 1001, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 550, 863 P.2d 795; see also Rest.2d Torts, § 46, com. d, p. 73.) Liability for IIED does not extend to " ' "mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities." ' " (Hughes v. Pair, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 1051, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 636, 209 P.3d 963.) Malicious or evil purpose is not essential to liability for IIED. (Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1045, 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 453.

California's definition of extreme and outrageous conduct is based on comment d to section 46 of the Restatement Second of Torts. (See Hughes v. Pair, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 1051, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 636, 209 P.3d 963.) Comment d to section 46 states: "Liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Generally, the case is one in which the recitation of the facts to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against the actor, and lead him to exclaim, 'Outrageous!' " (Rest.2d Torts, § 46, com. d, p. 73.)​

Crouch v. Trinity Christian Ctr. of Santa Ana, Inc., 39 Cal. App. 5th 995, 1007, 253 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1, 13 (2019), review denied (Dec. 11, 2019). Note what the court says in particular in the second paragraph, that liability is only found "where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." Refusing to give you a receipt or tell you who owns the place simply doesn't rise to that level of outrageous conduct.

As for punitive damages, the shop refusing to give you a receipt or tell you who the owner is not the sort o thing that gives rise to punitive damages either as it's not wrongful conduct. The idea behind punitive damages is to punish and deter people from intentionally or knowingly doing things that are wrong or that they know will cause harm to others. Refusing to give a receipt or tell you who the owner was doesn't fall in that category. It was not wrongful to deny you those things nor was it something that the store would have any reason to believe would cause you great emotional harm. Most people would be at worst frustrated by that refusal, but not harmed. Again, from a California court case describing when punitive damages are warranted:

To contain the generosity and emotionality of juries, appellate courts have set the threshold high in defining situations in which punitive damages can be given. Conduct which may be characterized as unreasonable, negligent, grossly negligent or reckless does not satisfy the highly culpable state of mind warranting punitive damages. (G.D. Searle & Co., supra, 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 122 Cal.Rptr. 218.) Conduct which warrants punitive damages must be of "such severity or shocking character [as] warrants the same treatment as accorded to willful misconduct—conduct in which defendant intends to cause harm." (Nolin v. National Convenience Stores, Inc., supra, 95 Cal.App.3d 279, 157 Cal.Rptr. 32.)​

Woolstrum v. Mailloux, 141 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 1, 10, 190 Cal. Rptr. 729, 735 (App. Dep't Super Ct. 1983).

 

[BobR317]

You might be able to simply add the shop as a defendant to your present lawsuit. Note that if the tatoo artist is truly an independent contractor — just rents the space from the shop and is not controlled by the shop like an employee would — then you'd have no claim against the shop for this.



That would not succeed. In order to win a case for emotional distress, the acts of the defendant have to be pretty extreme; something well outside the normal bounds of human conduct. A shop refusing to give you receipts or tell who the owner is might be frustrating to a customer but that sort of thing happens frequently and is not the kind of extremely outrageous conduct that would give rise to an emotional distress claim. As a fairly recent California court case explains:

A defendant's conduct is considered to be outrageous if "it is so ' " 'extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.' " ' " (Hughes v. Pair, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 1051, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 636, 209 P.3d 963; see Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 965, 1001, 25 Cal.Rptr.2d 550, 863 P.2d 795; see also Rest.2d Torts, § 46, com. d, p. 73.) Liability for IIED does not extend to " ' "mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities." ' " (Hughes v. Pair, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 1051, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 636, 209 P.3d 963.) Malicious or evil purpose is not essential to liability for IIED. (Spinks v. Equity Residential Briarwood Apartments (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 1004, 1045, 90 Cal.Rptr.3d 453.

California's definition of extreme and outrageous conduct is based on comment d to section 46 of the Restatement Second of Torts. (See Hughes v. Pair, supra, 46 Cal.4th at p. 1051, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 636, 209 P.3d 963.) Comment d to section 46 states: "Liability has been found only where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community. Generally, the case is one in which the recitation of the facts to an average member of the community would arouse his resentment against the actor, and lead him to exclaim, 'Outrageous!' " (Rest.2d Torts, § 46, com. d, p. 73.)​

Crouch v. Trinity Christian Ctr. of Santa Ana, Inc., 39 Cal. App. 5th 995, 1007, 253 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1, 13 (2019), review denied (Dec. 11, 2019). Note what the court says in particular in the second paragraph, that liability is only found "where the conduct has been so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency, and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community." Refusing to give you a receipt or tell you who owns the place simply doesn't rise to that level of outrageous conduct.

As for punitive damages, the shop refusing to give you a receipt or tell you who the owner is not the sort o thing that gives rise to punitive damages either as it's not wrongful conduct. The idea behind punitive damages is to punish and deter people from intentionally or knowingly doing things that are wrong or that they know will cause harm to others. Refusing to give a receipt or tell you who the owner was doesn't fall in that category. It was not wrongful to deny you those things nor was it something that the store would have any reason to believe would cause you great emotional harm. Most people would be at worst frustrated by that refusal, but not harmed. Again, from a California court case describing when punitive damages are warranted:

To contain the generosity and emotionality of juries, appellate courts have set the threshold high in defining situations in which punitive damages can be given. Conduct which may be characterized as unreasonable, negligent, grossly negligent or reckless does not satisfy the highly culpable state of mind warranting punitive damages. (G.D. Searle & Co., supra, 49 Cal.App.3d 22, 122 Cal.Rptr. 218.) Conduct which warrants punitive damages must be of "such severity or shocking character [as] warrants the same treatment as accorded to willful misconduct—conduct in which defendant intends to cause harm." (Nolin v. National Convenience Stores, Inc., supra, 95 Cal.App.3d 279, 157 Cal.Rptr. 32.)​

Woolstrum v. Mailloux, 141 Cal. App. 3d Supp. 1, 10, 190 Cal. Rptr. 729, 735 (App. Dep't Super Ct. 1983).

Thank you very much. I understand much more about emotional distress lawsuits, punitive damage and I see why I wouldn't succeed perusing those. You've saved me a $75 filing fee, more paperwork and much more stress. I appreciate the time you took to help me.

I just learned what punitive damage is today, so I understood very little about it. I was watching the court tv show I've been asked to appear on and someone was awarded punitive damage. I'd heard the term before but I didn't know what it meant until I looked up a very basic definition.

 

[Disabled Vet]

You should appear on Judge Judy... Just remember she is in control and maintain a professional approach. Let us know if you do.

 

[army judge]

If Judge Judy, Hot Bench, or any other TV based legal show offers to try your case, take it.

Why?

You can't lose.

You don't have to chase some mope to collect your judgment, the show pays what the defendant is said to owe you.

Both of you get an appearance fee, just for showing up.

In olden times, BC (Before Covid) you'd have to travel, stay in a hotel, etc.

The show would front those costs, and a guest got a clothing allowance for filming.

Win, lose, or draw, both parties get paid.

Its all in good fun and in pursuit of entertaining the public.

Bottom line, agree to it, you'll get loot.

All you need is to do a Zoom or Webex from the comfort of your home, or in some cases a local hotel.

 

[adjusterjack]

I actually found proof I was there so I might not necessarily need the receipts for the suit. I found, in my bank statements, documented withdrawals from the ATM in their shop. It seems it would be hard for them to argue that I drove an hour from my house to use a specific ATM, in their shop, three separate times for no reason.

That's not "evidence" that you actually paid the money to the tattoo artist. It's only evidence that you happened to withdraw the money at that location. You could have just as easily gone to the bar next door and spent the money there.

Your testimony and bank statements might be sufficient to convince a judge in small claims court and the defendant might not deny being paid but, now that you understand "punitive damages," you also understand "evidence".

 

[zddoodah]

What can I do?

I'm confident you can do lots of things, but I doubt that's what you intended to ask.

No law requires most retail/personal service businesses to give you a receipt.

Also, I'm not sure who to sue. The artists operate like hair stylists, they rent space in a shop. Do I sue the shop or the artist?

Since I assume any lawsuit would be in small claims court, I see no downside to suing both.

Another thing I could do, I think, is file a separate suit against the shop for punitive damages from the emotional distress caused by them from maliciously refusing to give me the receipts or even tell me who the owner was (the shop manager told me she didn't know who she worked for).

That's just silly. "Maliciously refusing to give . . . receipts" is not a valid cause of action.

By the way, your damages would be the cost of correcting whatever mistake was made, so your withdrawals and payment to the tattoo artist aren't terribly relevant.

That's not "evidence" that you actually paid the money to the tattoo artist.

Yes, it is evidence that the OP paid the tattoo artist. Is it conclusive evidence (or what folks sometimes refer to as "proof")? No, for the reasons you mentioned. But it absolutely is evidence which, in conjunction with the OP's testimony, would almost certainly be sufficient to convince any trier of fact (if this were a relevant issue).

 

[Tax Counsel]

I was watching the court tv show I've been asked to appear on and someone was awarded punitive damage.

Judge Judy and similar TV judge shows are fun entertainment but in no way reflect how a real small claims court case would go. They are basically arbitration forums and the show host/judge has the freedom to say and rule however he/she wants all in the name of entertainment value. So never assume that what you see Judge Judy award on her show is what that person would have received in small claims court. Despite having once been a real judge, Judge Judy knows what stuff makes for good ratings, and acting like a real small claims court judge would be boring and get her canceled pretty quick.

 

[adjusterjack]

Yes, it is evidence that the OP paid the tattoo artist.

No, it's not evidence that he paid the tattoo artist. It's evidence that he withdrew the money at that location. To that extent I agree that it is evidence, and I explained that.

The trier of the fact, if he/she desires, may infer payment to the tattoo artist from that evidence and plaintiff's testimony.

 

[BobR317]

I'm confident you can do lots of things, but I doubt that's what you intended to ask.

No law requires most retail/personal service businesses to give you a receipt.



Since I assume any lawsuit would be in small claims court, I see no downside to suing both.



That's just silly. "Maliciously refusing to give . . . receipts" is not a valid cause of action.

By the way, your damages would be the cost of correcting whatever mistake was made, so your withdrawals and payment to the tattoo artist aren't terribly relevant.



Yes, it is evidence that the OP paid the tattoo artist. Is it conclusive evidence (or what folks sometimes refer to as "proof")? No, for the reasons you mentioned. But it absolutely is evidence which, in conjunction with the OP's testimony, would almost certainly be sufficient to convince any trier of fact (if this were a relevant issue).

That's just silly. The cost of the tattoo is most certainly part of the claim. You would buy an apple that turned out to be bad but only want the money back for the cost of cutting out the bad part? Also, it's silly that receipts aren't required, it took me about 3 minutes to look it up. I can do lots? That's not proper English and a poor attempt at being funny. Unlike you, I don't get off on arguing or treating people badly by laughing at them, buh bye.

 

[Zigner]

That's just silly. The cost of the tattoo is most certainly part of the claim.

Actually, if you sue and recover the cost to "repair the damage" (so to speak), then the cost of the tattoo is not part of your claim.

 

[Tax Counsel]

Actually, if you sue and recover the cost to "repair the damage" (so to speak), then the cost of the tattoo is not part of your claim.

I disagree. If the claim is breach of contract then the cost of the tattoo may indeed be very relevant to computation of damages. In most contract actions a plaintiff would recover expectancy damages. This the amount that would give the plaintiff the benefit of the bargain he/she struck. So if the deal was (just making up numbers here) that the artist was to do a tattoo that had certain elements in it for $500 total after 4 visits and at the end of the 4th visit there was still $100 owed and the artist screwed up the tattoo, and the customer got that screw up fixed someplace else for $200 then what the customer would win in the end is $100, because getting that $100 means that the customer got the deal that he struck: the tattoo he wanted for $500 ($400 he already paid the defendant + 200 to fix the problem someplace else - $100 won in the lawsuit = $500). The point is for expectancy damages you need to show what the deal was that you struck, and if your end of the deal is paying money, you need to show how much of that you actually paid in order to compute the correct damages.

 

[Zigner]

I disagree. If the claim is breach of contract then the cost of the tattoo may indeed be very relevant to computation of damages. In most contract actions a plaintiff would recover expectancy damages. This the amount that would give the plaintiff the benefit of the bargain he/she struck. So if the deal was (just making up numbers here) that the artist was to do a tattoo that had certain elements in it for $500 total after 4 visits and at the end of the 4th visit there was still $100 owed and the artist screwed up the tattoo, and the customer got that screw up fixed someplace else for $200 then what the customer would win in the end is $100, because getting that $100 means that the customer got the deal that he struck: the tattoo he wanted for $500 ($400 he already paid the defendant + 200 to fix the problem someplace else - $100 won in the lawsuit = $500). The point is for expectancy damages you need to show what the deal was that you struck, and if your end of the deal is paying money, you need to show how much of that you actually paid in order to compute the correct damages.

Ok, yes - I don't think we're disagreeing - you're just addressing it more thoroughly

My statement didn't factor in that the OP still had a balance due.

 

[zddoodah]

That's just silly. The cost of the tattoo is most certainly part of the claim.

No, it's not. You wanted a tattoo and paid $X for it. If you had gotten exactly what you wanted, you'd have paid $X.

You would buy an apple that turned out to be bad but only want the money back for the cost of cutting out the bad part?

No. Because (1) you can cut out the bad part yourself at no cost and (2) there's always a chance an apple won't be good on the inside.

Also, it's silly that receipts aren't required

You're free to think that, but it doesn't change anything.

it took me about 3 minutes to look it up.

Three minutes to look up what?

I can do lots? That's not proper English

Sure it is.

and a poor attempt at being funny.

It wasn't an attempt to be funny. It was an answer to the question you asked.