FULL VIDEO AT THE END OF THE POST
The Gazebo Project Begins
Mr. Barnes, representing California Redwood Gazebos, built a gazebo for Ms. Richardson.
The construction took place in December 2018.
The initial contract price for the gazebo was $13,900.
Ms. Richardson requested upgrades during the project.
These upgrades increased the total contract price to approximately $17,000.
Initial Dissatisfaction and Lawsuit
Ms. Richardson was not happy with the quality of the work.
She sued Mr. Barnes in April 2019.
A trial was held concerning the gazebo construction.
Both Ms. Richardson and Mr. Barnes testified at this prior trial.
They each produced evidence for the court.
Previous Judgment and Payment
The previous trial resulted in a judgment for Ms. Richardson.
She was awarded $2,500 from the total amount she had paid.
Ms. Richardson had paid Mr. Barnes $12,500 in total.
The court ordered Mr. Barnes to return $2,500 to Ms. Richardson.
This meant Mr. Barnes effectively completed the job for $10,000.
Mr. Barnes had filed a counterclaim for the balance of the original contract.
His counterclaim was dismissed in the previous trial.
The Online Review
After the gazebo was built, Ms. Richardson posted an online review.
This review was placed in January 2019.
The review stated that Mr. Barnes did not have a contractor's license.
It also claimed that his business was closing.
Mr. Barnes considered these statements libelous.
Mr. Barnes' Libel Claim
Mr. Barnes filed a new claim against Ms. Richardson.
He sued her for libel based on her online review.
He sought $5,000 in damages for the alleged libel.
Mr. Barnes stated that people in business are significantly affected by online reviews.
He argued that Ms. Richardson's review harmed his business.
Ms. Richardson's Defense for the Review
Judge Judy asked Ms. Richardson to provide proof for her statements.
Ms. Richardson claimed Mr. Barnes was not the one who built the gazebo.
She stated, "He's not the one that built it. That's why I said that."
She presented a photo of a man she identified as the builder.
Ms. Richardson also had a photo of the person who did the electrical work.
She asserted that Mr. Barnes did not perform any building work himself.
Judge Judy Clarifies Contractor Responsibilities
Judge Judy explained that Mr. Barnes operates a company, California Redwood Gazebos.
She clarified that the owner of a company does not have to personally perform all the work.
Hiring a company means the company is responsible, not necessarily the individual owner's direct labor.
Judge Judy stated, "You hired a company to build you a gazebo."
She compared it to hiring a general contractor for a house.
Such contractors often employ others or hire subcontractors.
The Apprentice Argument
Ms. Richardson tried to explain her reasoning further.
She mentioned that Mr. Barnes had told her the young man who built her gazebo was an apprentice.
Ms. Richardson stated, "I apologize if my understanding of an apprentice is not a licensed contractor."
Mr. Barnes, a licensed master barber, offered an analogy.
He explained that an apprentice can work under his license.
However, an apprentice cannot represent themselves as a licensed barber.
Judge Judy interrupted Mr. Barnes, telling him not to teach her the law.
The Misleading Nature of the Review
Judge Judy pointed out that the review was placed under "California Redwood Gazebos."
She emphasized that the review claimed the company was a "non-licensed contractor."
The presence of an apprentice or other workers does not mean the company itself is unlicensed.
Judge Judy stated that Ms. Richardson's claim about a "non-licensed contractor" was misleading.
She said Ms. Richardson could have written a review about the quality of the work.