A custom tailor does not really "eat the costs" if he pays for mistakes. Â Rather, he just passes this cost on to all customers in the form of higher prices for subsequent goods (and indeed previous goods as well). Â In a way, a tailor is simply allowing the customer to take out "insurance" on a good -- the higher price the tailor will charge for all of his goods is just like an insurance premium. Â If the tailor assesses his error rate properly, the higher prices the tailor charges will not pad his pockets, but will rather be paid out as insurance payments to customers who are dissatisfied with erroneous goods and thus don't pay. Â If you were going bespoke, wouldn't you be willing to pay an extra $100 for "insurance"? Â I would. Â The default should be, from an economic perspective, that the tailor pays for all mistakes, because the tailor can easily just increase the price of the good for taking on this burden. Â The customer could then "opt out" of the insurance program and decrease the price paid -- but he'd be at a double risk. Â First, he'd be at a risk of the tailor messing up, in which case the customer would then pay. Â Second, he'd be at the risk of the tailor taking less than adequate care, because the tailor would know that he would not be at financial risk in case of a mistake. Does this make sense? Â Can you tell that I am a law and economics believer?
Actually, I don't like this model at all. I think it only works for a big conglomerate with deep pockets or if its spread out on a large population. Even then, I still don't like this. This is the same reasoning why doctors must settle ridiculous lawsuits, which drives up everybody else's premiums. But, a bespoke tailor isn't a large corporation. In this case, many are just simple tradesman with not that much financial leeway. And, their customer base isn't really large enough to spread it unless they add even more money to the cost. I don't know how many suits they can make, but it would only work if there were more than 50 suits made each year to just recover the expected cost. And, we cannot just talk about the loss of money. We also need to consider all the workmanship and time that went into the garment, which cannot be recovered. This could be the tailor's 'consideration', and why it was a contract. Of course, I'm assuming a scenario where the garment was produced correctly, but for whatever reasons, the client is still unhappy. We must remember that tailors have been cheated before by their gentlemen clients before.