As I see it, you cannot have "independent contractors" renting spaces you cannot have a "staff" meeting. Furthermore, you cannot deduct "rent" from the work of those independent contractors.
Exactly how can you have a staff meeting when you don't employ anyone? I also agree you cannot deduct things from somebody's rent instead of paying them. If she was self employed isn't she allowed to take her clients?
@@shendisackett- independent contractors can still be part of a business. I’m a therapist, and there are 15 of us that work for one company that funnels clients to us based on expertise as their part of the deal, and we work on a 60/40 split for our part. We have “staff” meetings to discuss things about the business we’re part of, and things around the building, referring clients in-house to others, etc. We are not W2, but still represent and work for a singular entity. Somebody can indeed tell their clients where they’re going if they leave, but handing out new business cards or advertising for another business is not legal.
@@Josh-xn2uu I realise you can't hand out business cards or advertise whilst at the old job, but the plaintiff also can't be surprised when the clients leave as they were there for the nail tech, not her. In the UK it is common to see adverts in local papers and online when a hairdresser etc.. moves to a new business so that any clients they couldn't contact can find out where they are. Also they aren't 'staff' meetings just business meetings as these people are not employed by her, they just rent a space. Really the plaintiff is just the landlord to them, she has no say over how they conduct their business so long as it doesn't breach the conditions of the contract/lease. I assume she thinks it sounds like a bigger business, and that she has more money if she calls them staff. You skipped the bit about the plantiff having her friends nails done and instead of paying and tipping the defendant the plaintiff says they deducted it from her rent instead. That cannot be legal without the written consent of the defendant! To me they both behaved badly, but contract law overrides everything else. If I was the defendant I would have left as well if it was losing me clients, the pastor did admit to ministering to the defendants customers if the plaintiff told him to! So I am sympathetic to her but the law is the law.
@@shendisackett - I think the problem is that things are different in the US vs. the UK. Independent contractors who sign a contract to work for a business are considered loyal to that company. “Staff” is just a general term, not saying they’re just regular employees. It’s just a matter of semantics. These meetings can also be called town halls, etc. Not only is some of what defendant did verging on illegal, at the very least it’s not professional.
Too bad Judy didn’t pick up on the “I was taking it off your rent.” In other words, the defendant wasn’t being paid by the women of the church as they were paying the plaintiff. The plaintiff was probably skimming money off the top of that arrangement. The stylists working in the salon are independent contractors. The plaintiff has NO staff. Both that reprehensible preacher and plaintiff are running a huge scam. Defendant should call the cops.
Yes, I believe this is one of our beautiful judge's bad rulings. Had the plaintiff not changed the setting, I could see JJ holding the defendant responsible for rent. So what did the judge think the defendant should have done? Just as judge Judy held the defendant to the contract saying they could not have a verbal agreement outside of that, she should have said the same to the plaintiff. When she said we had a meeting and I told them if they have any problems, say it. She should definitely have put the new agreement in writing. The man's presence noted and agreed upon. Let alone if he wasn't paying rent.. Now that's still changing the contract verbally... But I want to know if the defendant was supposed to look for something that was going to pay her less or higher rent? Judge Judy wanted her to find herself in another complicated situation so she could come back to the show again? 😢 She always says she was only wrong once... in 1947 but what year was this, 97?😂
The amount of hairspray women had on their head … and the amount of hairspray on the bathroom walls opposite the mirror and on the floor … it wasn’t safe to strike a match!!!
I'd like to think that was not her plan. She seems like a decent person who was just trying to see if God wanted her to help in any way she could. It was a mistake. It lasted 2 mos.
How a salon for women can accommodate criminals coming out of jail? The judgement should have gone for the defendant without considering any other things. The contract was void when the plaintiff allowed the men on the premises.
I would NOT want to go into a place populated with ex inmates and addicts. What if one decided to follow me home or rob me after I left the shop?? Women should be safe, and that was not a safe environment!
@@mindimartian9821 You can scream common sense to anyone Religious but don't expect common sense back, these are people deluded into believing there's a man in the sky after all - You tell them a Pedophile shouldn't be in a school they'll tell you "Most of our priests are ex-pedos now reborn Christians."
She said the Defendant "ran in" and told her the business down the street wanted her. It sounded as if the Defendant had already left and returned to "brag". What difference does it make that the Defendant got a better deal elsewhere? She still left because of the "ministry". Plus, the Plaintiff asked the Defendant, "How soon can you be out?", while arguing. I agree with the Defendant that the Plaintiff in effect told her to leave. I think the award of 5 months rent is a bit steep.
The only way it would be a problem is if she had signed an NDA agreement requiring that the stylist not work within a certain radius of the original salon. But there wasn’t any kind of agreement in force to that effect.
Judge Judy could have given her the $50 difference for those last 5 months probably all parties would've been happy, but this was just overkill. Because of that, I feel the defendant should have won the whole case **if it was gonna be one or the other** I don't even remember if there was a countersuit.. both claims would have been dismissed @user-ov6bv9cn1o
The church should’ve been doing that business in their church. Why move part of the services into the salon? Also, interesting that the plaintiff said that she is the one who asked the pastor to set up in her salon. She was definitely doing it for a tax break.
I’m sorry but the combination of the ex felons/addicts plus religion would be enough to lose clients who aren’t comfortable with either, and not paying the tech for her services but “taking it off her rent” is simply not good enough.
I might be a bloke, but I know this much about women - they don't go to salons like this one just for their hair and nails. It's a social thing for them where they can yabber on about girlie stuff without having to worry about what men might think or do, and they certainly don't go there to get religion rammed down their necks. Because of that, I fully believe it was costing the defendant some clients.
Sadly JJ is wrong again! The moment your employer allows inmates into a business, people should have the right to break the contract because the terms changed. I side with the defendant in this one
The contract was for leasing a space at a hair/ nail salon business. Once the hair salon business turned into something else, the business environment changed and with that the contract was broken by the hair salon owner. Doesn't matter whether the lady that does nails got a rental at higher or lower price. Did it occur to JJ that if the men/church was not brought into the business, the nail lady might never have looked for another space or talked to Brian down the street. She could have spoken to Brian after her first year lease was over, but the fact that she did it after the church got mixed into business is telling. Wrong Judgement again by JJ.
The plaintiff broke the conditions of the contract by having the Mission work out of the salon. It doesn't matter of she had a "staff" meeting and they said it was ok to have the men be there - just like the defendant who said they discussed after signing, that if someone wasn't happy, they could just say that and leave without penalty on the contract. JJudy should have wisely dismissed both cases. (being that the defendant found lower rent elsewhere)
Agree ! I believe she should have dismissed both cases. I work in a salon, and I am a nail technician and aesthetician. The plaintiff changed the whole dynamic of the salon by having the mission work come in I am sorry, but that would have extremely aggravated me and my clients without your clients, you cannot make money and pay your rent. We are on, a commission basis no work no pay. I would have done the same thing that the defendant did no questions asked !
@@Christine-iw9doI think the same as you because she may have lost out on rent but the nail technician lost clients over this. Also the plaintiff was cross she took her clients with her? If you're self employed that is pretty normal isn't it? In the UK you see adverts, in local papers and online, when hairdressers etc.. move to let their clients that they couldn't contact know where they are now. I would not go to a salon if people were trying to minister to me, we all go there to relax! He even admitted he ministered to the defendant's clients if the plaintiff told him to.
Well said but judge Judy doesn’t go by feelings or thoughts. The defendant signed a contract and by law the judge has to give some kind of penalty for not finishing the contract. Yes, the owner of the salon did not have the church situation in the contract however , if the defendant knew the laws she could’ve came into court and said some different things in a different way, which would’ve made her win the case . The judge was fair on both sides but that’s what I believe.
@@caressacaprice I know it's contract law, but I feel the plaintiff also broke the contract by changing work conditions, but as you say the law doesn't care what people feel.
@@shendisackett I’ll be honest , I’ve been in the beauty industry for 30 years . Started at 20 yrs old now 50 and still going strong . I can honestly say I have never been asked to sign a contract but I know some salons require it. Listen , it’s the name of the game out there … I’ve seen it for years. Stylists, nail techs come and go ! They take their books with them . Sadly for owners they take a loss ! I work on commission. When girls / guys stylists aren’t happy they take their books and clients and roll . I’ve watched it happen over and over ! Some just think the grass is greener. Never worked in a salon where their wasn’t some drama but I can say my clients love spending time with me .. they confide in me and tell me I’m their therapy lol 😂. I have a few for over twenty years. But they would not be happy with what was going on in the plaintiff’s salon ! No way ! I’d be angry and upset myself. So my opinion, just mine , it would’ve been a wash ! Both walk away ! It just sucks she signed the contract! That’s what JJ went by. I would have moved on myself ! I’ve done it plenty of times and took my clients- they always followed me ! No wonder the guy a mile away wanted her she did good Nails . You always keep your customers, phone numbers and connections. It’s how it works in this business. I’ve seen every trick in the book. You don’t walk out the door until you have all your contact information for your clients. I have plenty of juicy stories from my salon ventures 😂
If the defendant just kept it to, she broke the lease and started a mission in the Salon and my clients were uncomfortable and if she brought a client as a witness, she would have won.
The plaintiff changed the terms of the contract. JJ should stay consistent in her rulings. Maybe she got a better deal but bringing in former prisoners is no different than a roommate bringing in a boyfriend or girlfriend to stay. It is unfair to the original people that leased spaced especially when you are bringing religion into the picture. The gaul of the plaintiff and the supposed minister.
While storefront churches do exist, the only way I have seen it work is either a) the church itself is the only thing in the storefront except for sponsored ministries or b) the church leases the space for when the building is closed and doing set up and tear down while renting an office space in an office building or having the pastor work from home during the week.
I disagree, normally the old cases are a mess of people talking to each other, talking over people, shouting, the works. JJ has had to get a lot tougher with people so we can follow what is happening as some of the old cases were complete chaos.
I don't think that the plaintiff should have gotten anything. Nobody in their right mind would have wanted to go to that place and have their nails done because of that cult.
One thing left out of the picture is to determine whether the defendant would have gone to the competitor had a third party not used the salon. So the judge may have erred in giving the plaintiff $1000.
What is it with people who think any of us want their religion thrust on us in ANY space, whatever their beliefs. Such shameful behaviour. I would have judged on the side of the defendant 100%.
I agree with Judy's ruling. The defendant should have left the salon the moment things started getting weird (of course, after advising the plaintiff that the new change was not acceptable). If the plaintiff decided to press charges then, I'm sure Judy would fully dismiss her. She was probably uncomfortable, but decided to stay around a little longer until she found a better deal. As for the plaintiff... she lies when she opens her mouth.
If I had a business for hairdressers etc. to pay rents for spaces in my building, I would not rent a space for some bible basher and his down and out clients in the same premises, who reminds me of steven seagal but without the daft vampire hair style...
3:24 Judy sometimes gets it wrong. I don't know what the judgment is yet, but I believe she will rule with the defendant, plaintiff can't change the whole atmosphere like that. As far as her bettering her deal so what. I'm a computer engineer, I was working for a city, my boss quit, new one was a complete %^##^. I worked with him for over two years then things were comin to a head. SO I went looking sensing the end was near. Sure enough he marches in and announces I am suspended for week for something he pulled and tried to blame on me. I had already been offered a job administrating networks for satellite clinics at a hospital. SO I sued the city, walked away with 100K, took a couple weeks off for a nice trip, then went to a better job. Point is when things are going bad you start looking for other jobs. That is not opportunistic, that is smart. Nor do you tell in her case the place she is going to how shitty things are, only that she has a bunch of clients, its called negotiation for a better rent.
I would not like to pause for space in a salon and then they move a pastor and some criminals in. No matter if i signed a contract or not. Judy got this one wrong.
Religion and pastors do not belong in a salon. This pastor is exploiting his flick by taking a rent-free space, and contributes nothing to the business. I would not have given the plaintiff a cent. I would have said “get the rent from the pastor.”
So she says there was no verbal contract to leave when the defendant wanted to, yet the same contract signed is meaningless when she had the defendant "agree" to bring in this shyster preacher. God he reeks bs besides lying right away. You can't have it both ways. I would have given this defendant any countersuit for foisting that idiot on her business.
JJ is wrong here. It doesn't matter if she also wanted to make more money...when you have drug addicts, rapists, criminals coming into your place of business outside the contract JJ JUST SAID she couldn't violate, it breaches the contract. End of story. Nothing else matters. Too bad JJ didn't think of that. Nothing outside the scope.
I Can Actually Say, I Am Extremely Dissatisfied With This Episode. JJ Was Wrong!!! I Wonder How Many Times She Deducted Out For Her Rent. She Shouldnt Owe Anything Becauze She Hardly Ever Saw Her Money!
I disagree with the judgment. If the plaintiff had a ‘skyrocketing’ business and was comfortable where she was, $50 a month wouldn’t have been enough of a deal on rent for her to move. Just because she ended up finding a better deal elsewhere when she was forced to look elsewhere doesn’t mean the catalyst of that wasn’t the fact that the plaintiff turned her salon into a church. The defendant got a raw deal because despite the fact that the judge agreed that the space wasn’t what she bargained for and therefore should have had the right to break the lease, she was still beholden to five months of it, which is no different from saying she should have just stayed at the salon, despite being uncomfortable and having it effect her business, for five months. The plaintiff broke the lease by dramatically changing the space the defendant was supposed to be renting. Where the defendant ended up after the lease was broken shouldn’t matter. The defendant had a right to break the lease and shouldn’t be responsible for any unpaid rent after she left.
These women "entrepreneurs" have no clue how tonrun a business, that their decisions have consequences, and that stupid decisions win stupid prizes. Wot a mess.
I dont agree she's was owed money. Whether she got a good deal on her next salon. Her situation was untenable. Its OK the salon ownersitting folk down and saying this pastor is going to work from here for 2 montjs. But you don't know at that stage the reality of that (and I'm certain she would have not spelled it out) that this means we'll have ex cons and addicts in the salon, I'm going to play church music/preaching all day, and the pastor will be approaching your clients. JJ did not ask whether if she had re-rented the nail space. I'd put money on she already had rented it out, and lost no more than a month's rent.
@@sunnystormy4973 and this is the only thing they posted to contribute lol. i wonder if they just go to everything that pops up on their feed to see if they can write first on it then move to the next. lol smh people are so strange lol and yes this also is the only thing i have contributed as well, but i watched all 4 parts lol and its ok i am strange lol
I think they were both dishonest. In part 1, the plaintiff and the pastor denied operating out of the salon, but JJ eventually got them to admit that it was true.
The plaintiff is dishonest. In part 2, @1:30 when JJ asked the guy didn’t any of those ex-inmates come into the salon, along with him she shook her head no but we now know it’s not true
“Brian down the street wants me and he wants me bad”😅
Is that what they are calling it now? "...wanting me bad."
😂😂😂😂😂
Back then, that was an innocent statement. Now, most people go right down the dunny with that statement 🚽
As I see it, you cannot have "independent contractors" renting spaces you cannot have a "staff" meeting. Furthermore, you cannot deduct "rent" from the work of those independent contractors.
I think that's fairly standard practice for salons, unless they're a large chain.
Exactly how can you have a staff meeting when you don't employ anyone? I also agree you cannot deduct things from somebody's rent instead of paying them. If she was self employed isn't she allowed to take her clients?
@@shendisackett- independent contractors can still be part of a business. I’m a therapist, and there are 15 of us that work for one company that funnels clients to us based on expertise as their part of the deal, and we work on a 60/40 split for our part. We have “staff” meetings to discuss things about the business we’re part of, and things around the building, referring clients in-house to others, etc. We are not W2, but still represent and work for a singular entity. Somebody can indeed tell their clients where they’re going if they leave, but handing out new business cards or advertising for another business is not legal.
@@Josh-xn2uu I realise you can't hand out business cards or advertise whilst at the old job, but the plaintiff also can't be surprised when the clients leave as they were there for the nail tech, not her. In the UK it is common to see adverts in local papers and online when a hairdresser etc.. moves to a new business so that any clients they couldn't contact can find out where they are. Also they aren't 'staff' meetings just business meetings as these people are not employed by her, they just rent a space. Really the plaintiff is just the landlord to them, she has no say over how they conduct their business so long as it doesn't breach the conditions of the contract/lease. I assume she thinks it sounds like a bigger business, and that she has more money if she calls them staff. You skipped the bit about the plantiff having her friends nails done and instead of paying and tipping the defendant the plaintiff says they deducted it from her rent instead. That cannot be legal without the written consent of the defendant! To me they both behaved badly, but contract law overrides everything else. If I was the defendant I would have left as well if it was losing me clients, the pastor did admit to ministering to the defendants customers if the plaintiff told him to! So I am sympathetic to her but the law is the law.
@@shendisackett - I think the problem is that things are different in the US vs. the UK. Independent contractors who sign a contract to work for a business are considered loyal to that company. “Staff” is just a general term, not saying they’re just regular employees. It’s just a matter of semantics. These meetings can also be called town halls, etc. Not only is some of what defendant did verging on illegal, at the very least it’s not professional.
Too bad Judy didn’t pick up on the “I was taking it off your rent.” In other words, the defendant wasn’t being paid by the women of the church as they were paying the plaintiff. The plaintiff was probably skimming money off the top of that arrangement. The stylists working in the salon are independent contractors. The plaintiff has NO staff. Both that reprehensible preacher and plaintiff are running a huge scam. Defendant should call the cops.
Yes I noticed that comment as well.
everyone has different perspective. I immediately thought she was footing the cost of the church members getting their nails done.
@@jelisabailey9893 it’s not perspective. The church ladies were paying plaintiff. It is really very simple.
Yes, I believe this is one of our beautiful judge's bad rulings.
Had the plaintiff not changed the setting, I could see JJ holding the defendant responsible for rent.
So what did the judge think the defendant should have done? Just as judge Judy held the defendant to the contract saying they could not have a verbal agreement outside of that, she should have said the same to the plaintiff. When she said we had a meeting and I told them if they have any problems, say it.
She should definitely have put the new agreement in writing. The man's presence noted and agreed upon.
Let alone if he wasn't paying rent.. Now that's still changing the contract verbally...
But I want to know if the defendant was supposed to look for something that was going to pay her less or higher rent? Judge Judy wanted her to find herself in another complicated situation so she could come back to the show again?
😢 She always says she was only wrong once... in 1947 but what year was this, 97?😂
@@antoni3477 huh? JJ rules according to law, not feelings.
These older cases are interesting and the hairstyles amazing!!
Yeah, way better than the "vermin-infested ramen noodles" look of today's women. Hideous.
The amount of hairspray women had on their head … and the amount of hairspray on the bathroom walls opposite the mirror and on the floor … it wasn’t safe to strike a match!!!
The salon owner was probably trying to evade taxes by inviting a a not-for-profit church into the premises.
Yep!
I'd like to think that was not her plan. She seems like a decent person who was just trying to see if God wanted her to help in any way she could. It was a mistake. It lasted 2 mos.
How a salon for women can accommodate criminals coming out of jail? The judgement should have gone for the defendant without considering any other things. The contract was void when the plaintiff allowed the men on the premises.
Men need their nails done too!
I would NOT want to go into a place populated with ex inmates and addicts. What if one decided to follow me home or rob me after I left the shop?? Women should be safe, and that was not a safe environment!
Are you kidding me do you know how many people that have changed their lives wow smh Jesus heals delivers and transforms
The guy and maybe the female plaintiff were nutjobs.🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪
@@Conversations.with.serina You are totally missing the point. Ex-inmates and addicts DO NOT BELONG in a women's hair/nail salon for any reason.
exactly 💯 @@mindimartian9821
@@mindimartian9821 You can scream common sense to anyone Religious but don't expect common sense back, these are people deluded into believing there's a man in the sky after all - You tell them a Pedophile shouldn't be in a school they'll tell you "Most of our priests are ex-pedos now reborn Christians."
JJ should run a series titled 'Where are they Now?'
Judge Judy is simply the best.
What if Brian had charged her more? Would it show she wanted to get out of there so badly that she would even pay more rent?
She said the Defendant "ran in" and told her the business down the street wanted her. It sounded as if the Defendant had already left and returned to "brag". What difference does it make that the Defendant got a better deal elsewhere? She still left because of the "ministry". Plus, the Plaintiff asked the Defendant, "How soon can you be out?", while arguing. I agree with the Defendant that the Plaintiff in effect told her to leave. I think the award of 5 months rent is a bit steep.
Yeah let's all believe a church goer. They're the most full of shyte people.
The guy and maybe the female plaintiff were nutjobs.🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪
The Plaintiff should have got ZERO.
Poor business practice.
The only way it would be a problem is if she had signed an NDA agreement requiring that the stylist not work within a certain radius of the original salon. But there wasn’t any kind of agreement in force to that effect.
Judge Judy could have given her the $50 difference for those last 5 months probably all parties would've been happy, but this was just overkill.
Because of that, I feel the defendant should have won the whole case **if it was gonna be one or the other** I don't even remember if there was a countersuit.. both claims would have been dismissed @user-ov6bv9cn1o
If the defendant had never went back to her former employer to brag, she would have won the case.
I would have never gone back to a place where they are ministering to other people. Not a salon...
This is clearly a case of separation of Church and Nails
The church should’ve been doing that business in their church. Why move part of the services into the salon? Also, interesting that the plaintiff said that she is the one who asked the pastor to set up in her salon. She was definitely doing it for a tax break.
I’m sorry but the combination of the ex felons/addicts plus religion would be enough to lose clients who aren’t comfortable with either, and not paying the tech for her services but “taking it off her rent” is simply not good enough.
I might be a bloke, but I know this much about women - they don't go to salons like this one just for their hair and nails. It's a social thing for them where they can yabber on about girlie stuff without having to worry about what men might think or do, and they certainly don't go there to get religion rammed down their necks. Because of that, I fully believe it was costing the defendant some clients.
Sadly JJ is wrong again! The moment your employer allows inmates into a business, people should have the right to break the contract because the terms changed. I side with the defendant in this one
i have the same feeling.
I agree.
That’s what she said…. Did you watch the whole thing?
Absolutely
Judge Judy is educated
The contract was for leasing a space at a hair/ nail salon business. Once the hair salon business turned into something else, the business environment changed and with that the contract was broken by the hair salon owner. Doesn't matter whether the lady that does nails got a rental at higher or lower price.
Did it occur to JJ that if the men/church was not brought into the business, the nail lady might never have looked for another space or talked to Brian down the street. She could have spoken to Brian after her first year lease was over, but the fact that she did it after the church got mixed into business is telling.
Wrong Judgement again by JJ.
Agreed!! For all the reasons you stated.
🎯
It got messy. Oddly, I think both sides witnesses did more harm than good to the respective people who brought them.
i Agree. smh
Judy is QUEEN
The plaintiff broke the conditions of the contract by having the Mission work out of the salon. It doesn't matter of she had a "staff" meeting and they said it was ok to have the men be there - just like the defendant who said they discussed after signing, that if someone wasn't happy, they could just say that and leave without penalty on the contract. JJudy should have wisely dismissed both cases. (being that the defendant found lower rent elsewhere)
Agree ! I believe she should have dismissed both cases. I work in a salon, and I am a nail technician and aesthetician. The plaintiff changed the whole dynamic of the salon by having the mission work come in I am sorry, but that would have extremely aggravated me and my clients without your clients, you cannot make money and pay your rent. We are on, a commission basis no work no pay.
I would have done the same thing that the defendant did no questions asked !
@@Christine-iw9doI think the same as you because she may have lost out on rent but the nail technician lost clients over this. Also the plaintiff was cross she took her clients with her? If you're self employed that is pretty normal isn't it? In the UK you see adverts, in local papers and online, when hairdressers etc.. move to let their clients that they couldn't contact know where they are now. I would not go to a salon if people were trying to minister to me, we all go there to relax! He even admitted he ministered to the defendant's clients if the plaintiff told him to.
Well said but judge Judy doesn’t go by feelings or thoughts. The defendant signed a contract and by law the judge has to give some kind of penalty for not finishing the contract. Yes, the owner of the salon did not have the church situation in the contract however , if the defendant knew the laws she could’ve came into court and said some different things in a different way, which would’ve made her win the case . The judge was fair on both sides but that’s what I believe.
@@caressacaprice I know it's contract law, but I feel the plaintiff also broke the contract by changing work conditions, but as you say the law doesn't care what people feel.
@@shendisackett I’ll be honest , I’ve been in the beauty industry for 30 years . Started at 20 yrs old now 50 and still going strong . I can honestly say I have never been asked to sign a contract but I know some salons require it. Listen , it’s the name of the game out there … I’ve seen it for years. Stylists, nail techs come and go ! They take their books with them . Sadly for owners they take a loss ! I work on commission. When girls / guys stylists aren’t happy they take their books and clients and roll . I’ve watched it happen over and over ! Some just think the grass is greener. Never worked in a salon where their wasn’t some drama but I can say my clients love spending time with me .. they confide in me and tell me I’m their therapy lol 😂. I have a few for over twenty years. But they would not be happy with what was going on in the plaintiff’s salon ! No way ! I’d be angry and upset myself.
So my opinion, just mine , it would’ve been a wash ! Both walk away ! It just sucks she signed the contract! That’s what JJ went by.
I would have moved on myself ! I’ve done it plenty of times and took my clients- they always followed me ! No wonder the guy a mile away wanted her she did good Nails .
You always keep your customers, phone numbers and connections. It’s how it works in this business. I’ve seen every trick in the book. You don’t walk out the door until you have all your contact information for your clients. I have plenty of juicy stories from my salon ventures 😂
Very complicated case. I didn't know which way the pendulum would swing until the end. I can't say I am happy or angry about the final verdict
It was full of twists, I couldn’t tell either! I think it was fair, I think they both made mistakes in the end.
OF COURSE she bettered her situation!!! ANYTHING is better than that situation!!!
If the defendant just kept it to, she broke the lease and started a mission in the Salon and my clients were uncomfortable and if she brought a client as a witness, she would have won.
The plaintiff changed the terms of the contract. JJ should stay consistent in her rulings. Maybe she got a better deal but bringing in former prisoners is no different than a roommate bringing in a boyfriend or girlfriend to stay. It is unfair to the original people that leased spaced especially when you are bringing religion into the picture. The gaul of the plaintiff and the supposed minister.
While storefront churches do exist, the only way I have seen it work is either a) the church itself is the only thing in the storefront except for sponsored ministries or b) the church leases the space for when the building is closed and doing set up and tear down while renting an office space in an office building or having the pastor work from home during the week.
The plaintiff's demeanor and having that contract saved the day.
The defendant should really be allowed out of her contract for having to deal with these nutjobs.
Ha Ha Co. soo typical 😅😂😂
They paid her by taking it off of her rent??? Yeah okay. Not good enough for me to say either!!!
She had no right to put a mini church in the salon after that lady signed a contract and came in expecting the establishment to remain the same.
Where are they now? And what have they done since then.
I would like to have known when the defendant started at the new place
Great decision by JJ. The early cases were so nice and well mannered 😊😏👏
I disagree, normally the old cases are a mess of people talking to each other, talking over people, shouting, the works. JJ has had to get a lot tougher with people so we can follow what is happening as some of the old cases were complete chaos.
What year is this?? 90s?? Post all the older 1990s Judge Judy videos!
1996
@elliebellie7816 the incident happened in' 96, sounds like it's like '98
Hit the nail on the head, JJ. Good ruling 👍
This is an interesting case...
This is early JJ. Her demeanor was much nicer here than what it became later on.
Depends on the case as well as other variables. Maybe the station has a say in how viewers are attracted.
I don't think that the plaintiff should have gotten anything. Nobody in their right mind would have wanted to go to that place and have their nails done because of that cult.
One thing left out of the picture is to determine whether the defendant would have gone to the competitor had a third party not used the salon. So the judge may have erred in giving the plaintiff $1000.
I don’t agree with this one
Get over it the judge is right
@@sandrawilson8737 relax 🙄
Though case. Lots of moving parts
What is it with people who think any of us want their religion thrust on us in ANY space, whatever their beliefs. Such shameful behaviour. I would have judged on the side of the defendant 100%.
I agree with Judy's ruling. The defendant should have left the salon the moment things started getting weird (of course, after advising the plaintiff that the new change was not acceptable). If the plaintiff decided to press charges then, I'm sure Judy would fully dismiss her. She was probably uncomfortable, but decided to stay around a little longer until she found a better deal. As for the plaintiff... she lies when she opens her mouth.
If I had a business for hairdressers etc. to pay rents for spaces in my building, I would not rent a space for some bible basher and his down and out clients in the same premises, who reminds me of steven seagal but without the daft vampire hair style...
Wrong judgement
What a TERRIBLE TERRIBLE judgement.
3:24 Judy sometimes gets it wrong. I don't know what the judgment is yet, but I believe she will rule with the defendant, plaintiff can't change the whole atmosphere like that. As far as her bettering her deal so what. I'm a computer engineer, I was working for a city, my boss quit, new one was a complete %^##^. I worked with him for over two years then things were comin to a head. SO I went looking sensing the end was near. Sure enough he marches in and announces I am suspended for week for something he pulled and tried to blame on me. I had already been offered a job administrating networks for satellite clinics at a hospital. SO I sued the city, walked away with 100K, took a couple weeks off for a nice trip, then went to a better job. Point is when things are going bad you start looking for other jobs. That is not opportunistic, that is smart. Nor do you tell in her case the place she is going to how shitty things are, only that she has a bunch of clients, its called negotiation for a better rent.
She's not wrong she's educated
I would not like to pause for space in a salon and then they move a pastor and some criminals in. No matter if i signed a contract or not.
Judy got this one wrong.
Religion and pastors do not belong in a salon. This pastor is exploiting his flick by taking a rent-free space, and contributes nothing to the business. I would not have given the plaintiff a cent. I would have said “get the rent from the pastor.”
The guy and maybe the female plaintiff were nutjobs.🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪🤪
Period of two month 🤣🤣🤣🤣💀💀
JJ can see it clear ❤
The plaintiff appears to be stuck in the '80s with that "Pat Benatar" perm.
So she says there was no verbal contract to leave when the defendant wanted to, yet the same contract signed is meaningless when she had the defendant "agree" to bring in this shyster preacher. God he reeks bs besides lying right away. You can't have it both ways. I would have given this defendant any countersuit for foisting that idiot on her business.
JJ is wrong here. It doesn't matter if she also wanted to make more money...when you have drug addicts, rapists, criminals coming into your place of business outside the contract JJ JUST SAID she couldn't violate, it breaches the contract. End of story. Nothing else matters. Too bad JJ didn't think of that. Nothing outside the scope.
I Can Actually Say, I Am Extremely Dissatisfied With This Episode. JJ Was Wrong!!! I Wonder How Many Times She Deducted Out For Her Rent. She Shouldnt Owe Anything Becauze She Hardly Ever Saw Her Money!
I disagree with the judgment. If the plaintiff had a ‘skyrocketing’ business and was comfortable where she was, $50 a month wouldn’t have been enough of a deal on rent for her to move. Just because she ended up finding a better deal elsewhere when she was forced to look elsewhere doesn’t mean the catalyst of that wasn’t the fact that the plaintiff turned her salon into a church. The defendant got a raw deal because despite the fact that the judge agreed that the space wasn’t what she bargained for and therefore should have had the right to break the lease, she was still beholden to five months of it, which is no different from saying she should have just stayed at the salon, despite being uncomfortable and having it effect her business, for five months. The plaintiff broke the lease by dramatically changing the space the defendant was supposed to be renting. Where the defendant ended up after the lease was broken shouldn’t matter. The defendant had a right to break the lease and shouldn’t be responsible for any unpaid rent after she left.
Great judgement JJ. Don't get blindsided by this religious stuff and all that,the contract and actions resulted by it is what matters.
These women "entrepreneurs" have no clue how tonrun a business, that their decisions have consequences, and that stupid decisions win stupid prizes.
Wot a mess.
I dont agree she's was owed money. Whether she got a good deal on her next salon. Her situation was untenable. Its OK the salon ownersitting folk down and saying this pastor is going to work from here for 2 montjs. But you don't know at that stage the reality of that (and I'm certain she would have not spelled it out) that this means we'll have ex cons and addicts in the salon, I'm going to play church music/preaching all day, and the pastor will be approaching your clients. JJ did not ask whether if she had re-rented the nail space. I'd put money on she already had rented it out, and lost no more than a month's rent.
I did not agree with this one. Mind you, I’m an atheist, so likely that would make the new environment more hostile to me. 🤷🏼♀️
Plantiff is beautiful and soft spoken ... now a days Ladies like these are just a dream
Our daughter-in-law is like that. She’s also a fabulous wife to our son, and an incredible Mom to our granddaughters ☺️❤
@@PartyOf8Please your son is lucky
@@PartyOf8Please I meant that in a good way
soft spoken doesnt mean she's not a beeouch 😂😂
@@abhinavjoshi2861
Yes, he is. And he lets her know how much he loves her and how lucky he is that she said, “Yes!” all those years ago!!
first 👾
🍪
congrats ! ⭐️ ⭐️ ⭐️
are you 5 years old ... ?
@@sunnystormy4973 and this is the only thing they posted to contribute lol. i wonder if they just go to everything that pops up on their feed to see if they can write first on it then move to the next. lol smh people are so strange lol and yes this also is the only thing i have contributed as well, but i watched all 4 parts lol and its ok i am strange lol
Thecool: Grow up 🙄🙄
@@jeaniebee3657
we're all strange 🙃
The plaintiffs sounded honest and truthful. Defendant the complete opposite, I knew she was lying
I think they were both dishonest. In part 1, the plaintiff and the pastor denied operating out of the salon, but JJ eventually got them to admit that it was true.
The plaintiff is dishonest. In part 2, @1:30 when JJ asked the guy didn’t any of those ex-inmates come into the salon, along with him she shook her head no but we now know it’s not true