FILE PHOTO.
Image Credit: pexels.com
March 23, 2022 - 6:30 AM
A Kelowna woman who wasn't happy with her botox treatment has lost out on her chance of a $3,500 refund after the case ended up in the small claims court.
According to a March 18 Civil Resolution Tribunal decision, Shauna Adams paid Kelowna based DermMedica $3,581 for the botox treatment in 2019.
Adams went to an appointment with Dr. Craig Crippen at DermMedica but was unhappy with the results.
After sending the company several emails, Adams then emailed saying if she received "a full refund and compensation for damages" she would not sue.
Why Adams was unhappy with her botox treatment is not discussed in the decision, and she does not claim damages for negligence or breach of contract.
The decision says following her complaints, an employee of DermMedica met with Adams to discuss the issue.
"The parties dispute exactly what happened at that meeting," the Tribunal said.
Adams said the company agreed to offer her a full refund if she signed a release. She said she'd take the release home and read it before signing it.
Several emails followed and DermMedica offered to e-transfer the money once she signed the agreement.
Adams emailed back saying she wanted to get a second opinion "before I wave my rights by excepting your offer (sic)."
More emails followed and Adams said she'd accept the refund plus $1,000 compensation.
DermMedica rejected the offer.
Adams then asked for the original $3,581 refund to be put back on the table.
However, DermMedica said no.
Much of the decision goes into the finer details of contract law and whether Adams' rejection of the original offer by asking for another $1,000 made the original agreement void.
"Ms. Adams repudiated the settlement agreement. Repudiation occurs when a party indicates to the other party that they no longer intend to follow through on a contract," The Tribunal ruled.
The decision says if one side "repudiates a contract" the other side is entitled to terminate the contract.
"I find that this is what happened here. By demanding an additional $1,000, I find that Ms. Adams’s conduct indicated that she rejected the settlement agreement," The Tribunal ruled. "It may be that Ms. Adams subjectively did not intend to repudiate the settlement agreement, but again this does not matter. I find that an objective bystander would consider her demand for more money to be a repudiation of the settlement agreement."
With that, The Tribunal dismissed Adams' claim for a refund.
READ MORE: B.C. man who lost dentures during fight with neighbour wins in small claims court
To contact a reporter for this story, email Ben Bulmer or call (250) 309-5230 or email the editor. You can also submit photos, videos or news tips to the newsroom and be entered to win a monthly prize draw.
We welcome your comments and opinions on our stories but play nice. We won't censor or delete comments unless they contain off-topic statements or links, unnecessary vulgarity, false facts, spam or obviously fake profiles. If you have any concerns about what you see in comments, email the editor in the link above.
News from © iNFOnews, 2022