We may divide this episode into two different phases. 1) from Tuesday till Friday 2) from Friday till Sunday.
Phase 1: Tuesday till Friday: $85, $14, Dress Value
Aviva requested the dress repaired without flares and that the job should be completed by Thursday. Mrs. Adler failed on two accounts. She did not complete the job at the prescribed time and ruined the dress by adding flares instead of making the dress straight.
A service provider who is tardy is guilty of causing anguish to his/her customer. Nevertheless, while tardiness gives the customer a right to have hard feelings against the service provider, tardiness alone does not warrant withholding payment, so long as the service remains beneficial. Generally, a dress retains the same value whether or not it was ready at the prescribed time. (Parenthetically, there comes a point in time when tardiness is above and beyond the norm that the customer may rescind on the transaction.)
However, payment may be withheld when the service provider ruins the merchandise. A used dress is hardly worth anything to anyone other than to the initial owner. If the dress is not to the owner's liking anymore, it becomes virtually valueless. Thus, Mrs. Adler ruined the dress. As such, Aviva would be absolved from paying for the addition of the flares.
Similarly, as Mrs. Adler ruined the dress, she is required to compensate Aviva for the material as well as for the value of such a dress which had already been worn twice beforehand.
Phase 2: Friday till Sunday: Additional work
If on Friday, Aviva would have agreed that if they fix it up she would accept it, even though it was already obvious that they couldn't make it 100% as she was hoping for, (it already had flares and it was not going to become 100% straight anymore) and they claim that they did make it acceptable then there is room for discussion, and the other side's story has to be heard also.
However, Aviva was quite clear what she wanted. She wanted it straight. If it was impossible to do, the seamstress should have been upfront with her. An attempt to make it "acceptable" would not warrant payment for an unsolicited job from which the customer has no benefit. Thus, Aviva is absolved from paying for the additional service rendered.
[Rabbi Yitzchak Boehm]