A Teen Allegedly Ordered More Than 200 Drinks Totaling $1,800 but Couldn’t Pay, So the Bar Manager’s Solution Left Her Without Her Hair
"I am not taking advantage of you."
An 18-year-old woman in Bangkok, Thailand, allegedly had her head shaved by a bar manager. According to People, this happened after she couldn’t pay a bill of roughly $1,800. She filed a police complaint on Friday, Aug. 28, alleging the manager shaved her head over an unpaid tab of 60,000 Thai baht for more than 200 drinks.
The woman allegedly used a fake ID to enter the bar on Aug. 25. She was confronted by staff when she tried to leave without paying, as reported by The Bangkok Post and Thai Examiner. She told police the manager and staff threatened violence before shaving her head.
A video of the incident shows the woman appearing to agree to a “hair purchase contract.” A man off-camera says, “I am not taking advantage of you. This is the market rate. I will attach this for you. I am adding extra for this as well. Okay?” He then shaves off her hair with an electric razor.
The “Contract” Itself May Not Hold Up Legally
The bar manager denied threatening violence. He claimed the woman and her mother agreed to sell her hair instead of paying, according to Thai Examiner. Her mother later told police she hadn’t realized staff would shave her daughter’s head completely. The woman also said she never consented to the footage being shared online. Outlets reported she’s been accused of skipping bills at other bars before. Thailand’s Ministry of Social Development and Human Security is now investigating.
Setting aside where this happened, the situation raises a legal question. It would look very different in the US. Cutting someone’s hair without genuine, voluntary consent is widely treated as battery under American law, since it involves intentional, unwanted physical contact. In Florida, for example, simple battery under FSS 784.03 requires only an intentional touch the other person didn’t agree to. Even an appearance of consent obtained through threats wouldn’t hold up as a real defense.
That’s the deeper issue with the so-called “hair purchase contract” itself. Under US contract law, an agreement signed because of a threat of violence is considered voidable. Courts can set it aside entirely if the signer can show they had no genuine choice. A person’s on-camera “yes” doesn’t settle the matter if it was extracted under duress; a court would look at the surrounding circumstances, not just the recorded words.
Even the underlying debt itself wouldn’t typically be collected this way. Businesses in the US generally have to pursue unpaid bills through civil channels, like a lawsuit. In cases involving deliberate nonpayment, they can report it to police as theft of services, but physical coercion or a self-devised “in-kind” payment arrangement isn’t a lawful option.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
Follow The Mary Sue:
