FULL VIDEO AT THE END OF THIS POST
THIS HANDYMAN'S CONTRACT DID NOT IMPRESS JUDGE JUDY!
An Incomplete Paint Job Lands in Court
Imagine hiring a handyman for a big job.
You pay a deposit.
Then the work stalls.
That is exactly what happened in this Judge Judy courtroom.
The Plaintiff Seeks Her Deposit Back
Mrs. Satek is the plaintiff.
She hired Charles Hedley, the defendant, for painting work.
She found him through a community app.
Mrs. Satek says he did not finish the job.
She wants her $1,500 deposit returned.
The Defendant's Side of the Story
Charles Hedley is a handyman.
He claims he did perform work.
He says Mrs. Satek had already started some work.
He also claims she improperly installed flooring.
Finding a Handyman on an App
Mrs. Satek hired Charles Hedley on March 4th, 2018.
She found him on a "next-door app."
People on the app had referred him.
Judge Judy asks about the app.
She points out that reviews could be from anyone.
Family members could write glowing reports.
Mrs. Satek agrees.
The Contract Comes Under Scrutiny
The job was supposed to start on March 12th.
Mrs. Satek confirms there was a written contract.
Both parties provide their copies.
Judge Judy notes some crossing out on the contract.
The agreement was $1,500 down and $1,500 on completion.
Judge Judy asks Charles Hedley about his signature.
His business name is "Bubba's Handyman by Charles."
He confirms he prepared the contract.
He calls it a "generic contract."
Judge Judy Demands the Scope of Work
Judge Judy calls the contract "ridiculous."
She asks Charles Hedley to explain the scope of work.
She wants to know what the $3,000 payment was for.
The contract itself does not clearly state this.
Charles Hedley says there was "another paper."
He claims it should have been with the contract.
Judge Judy dismisses this.
She says if he signed it, he was a "fool."
She then says he appears intelligent.
She questions why he would sign a contract without a clear scope of work.
The contract mentions an "SOW," which means Scope of Work.
Charles Hedley confirms this.
A "Ridiculous" Contract for a Businessman
Judge Judy reiterates that the contract is "ridiculous."
She criticizes Charles Hedley.
He claims to have been in business for 19 years.
She says it is ridiculous for him to use such a contract.
She also says it is ridiculous for an intelligent person to pay $1,500 without a clear scope.
She gives a hypothetical example.
What if the scope of work was just writing "Charles and a big heart" on the door?
Charles Hedley insists they went over the scope verbally.
The Missing Scope of Work Document
Judge Judy addresses Charles Hedley directly.
She reminds him he is the businessman.
She states that nothing outside the contract is relevant.
This is unless it is signed and executed in the same form.
She asks him to show her the "SOW."
Charles Hedley admits he does not have it with him.
Judge Judy reminds him he is the businessman.
He is supposed to have the SOW.
She explains that anything outside the document is "parole evidence."
It is inadmissible to define the scope of work.
She tells him to "fix it if you plan on being in business anymore."
The Details of the Unfinished Job
Mrs. Satek confirms she hired him for painting.
She wants her deposit back because the job was not done.
Charles Hedley tries to interject with photos.
Judge Judy tells him to wait.
Mrs. Satek explains the scope of the painting.
It included the entire first floor.