A-M-P wrote:
No casting, No callback just direct booking from his photos.

That would be a rush-call and case should be made for continuous employment retroactive divided by amount of "spots" they'd happen to shoot or cut - plus residuals - or are we talking different work here - is this "acting" in a TV spot or "print"?

BGF wrote:

That would be a rush-call and case should be made for continuous employment retroactive divided by amount of "spots" they'd happen to shoot or cut - plus residuals - or are we talking different work here - is this "acting" in a TV spot or "print"?

Print

A-M-P wrote:

No casting, No callback just direct booking from his photos. They never saw him in person before booking him. This was for a print job. I get called Kaizer just direct book _________ it shoots on _________ which was 9 days from the date of me getting confirmation of booking.

Okay. That makes sense for print. But all you owe them is "current" look. I guess this is what the "salon" screwed up.

See for TV (typically nationwide), you'd go and read first, then recalled, then booked - then when they're in pre-pro this is the hire date for reading or rehearsal or fitting, etc.. -  then date of principal photography, then residuals or buyout.  -

Now it fits together.

A-M-P wrote:

Print

It makes sense now, as you said "acting" in reference to this. - Yeah this totally sucks. Sorry. -

Typically in film tv advertising land, if they booked you in two weeks to shoot, in order to ensure you're not doing any other work that might influence your appearance, they pay for the time, even though not on set, this is where this continuous employment stuff I spoke of comes from.

A-M-P wrote:
For example you go in for a trim and the stylist cut way too much hair off and the haircut was just awful and you lost a part (job) as an actor/model due to the bad haircut.

You told the stylist how you were disappointed in their services express how much you hated it at the shop and they still charged you and said there is nothing else they can do. You have witnesses other stylists there who had to jump in at the end of the cut to fix the stylist's mistake the best way they possibly could but the hair was already gone and there was nothing else they could do and where only able to try to save the little bit that was left.

You have email and documentation from the client and agent letting you know of a direct booking that you lost due to the bad haircut.

This will also cost the talent future bookings until the hair grows back which could take months.

We also have to make new headshots and comp-cards printed as well since he doesn't look like his headshot due to the hair.


With this information in your opinion do you believe I would have reasonable cause to sue for damages?

This is how this "California" lawyer would analyze the case:

1) The general rule is lost profit damages cannot be speculative.  These types of damages fall into the category commonly referred to as "consequential" damages.  To the extent you had an agreement that specifically required a certain look, and that agreement was cancelled as a result of failing to maintain that look, we go to to the next phase.

2) Consequential damages are "foreseeable consequence of the misconduct."  Ordinarily a bad haircut for a 12 year old does not result in 3k in damages and would not be foreseeable.  So, was the hairstylist expressly informed of the job and the money at stake?  If not, the chances of prevailing are slim.  If so, the chances are better.

3) Mitigation.  Was the job such that a nice wig could not be acquired in order to mitigate the damage? 

On a practical level, while its too bad the boy lost this job, its simply not worth the time or effort to pursue, especially if it can be fixed with a wig.

Eye of the World wrote:
I am not a hairstylist, but women wear wigs and extensions that look natural. For $3000 couldn't something have been done along those lines to get back closer to his normal look? It almost seems like the booking people used that as an excuse. If he was so far and above the other candidates for the job that they HAD to have him I suspect a solution could have been found.

Edit: I see Newcomb beat me to it on the wig idea. Also, since this was for print could it even have been corrected in Photoshop?

Is easier for them to recast than to spend the extra $ on wigs and photoshop. To recast all they have to do is ask the agent to send another boy with long hair from the roster. 3k jobs are normal and a dime in a dozen  in the commercial world. Anyhow Like I said I'm over it more jobs will come his way.

A-M-P wrote:
Is easier for them to recast than to spend the extra $ on wigs and photoshop. To recast all they have to do is ask the agent to send another boy with long hair from the roster. 3k jobs are normal and a dime in a dozen  in the commercial world. Anyhow Like I said I'm over it more jobs will come his way.

I agree, folks who don't know how easy it is to get replaced, just wont know. (Happened to me on a Period Show due to highlights the week prior - so I know how it feels to see a paycheck walk away...) -  I hope all works out for you and that "client" is not that "offended" that he would not rebook or not offer future consideration, accidents like this do happen in this business and are not under your or your child's control 100%.

Best of luck!

Newcomb Photography wrote:

This is how this "California" lawyer would analyze the case:

1) The general rule is lost profit damages cannot be speculative.  These types of damages fall into the category commonly referred to as "consequential" damages.  To the extent you had an agreement that specifically required a certain look, and that agreement was cancelled as a result of failing to maintain that look, we go to to the next phase.

2) Consequential damages are "foreseeable consequence of the misconduct."  Ordinarily a bad haircut for a 12 year old does not result in 3k in damages and would not be foreseeable.  So, was the hairstylist expressly informed of the job and the money at stake?  If not, the chances of prevailing are slim.  If so, the chances are better.

3) Mitigation.  Was the job such that a nice wig could not be acquired in order to mitigate the damage? 

On a practical level, while its too bad the boy lost this job, its simply not worth the time or effort to pursue, especially if it can be fixed with a wig.

The OP did say she's over it, and have digested it. But thanks for adding gasoline to the an already burning fire.