The Woodpecker Problem: A Clash of Misunderstandings

🏠The plaintiff, a pest control company, claims the defendant hired them to get rid of woodpeckers at her home.

💸The plaintiff is seeking $578.78, the amount owed for the services rendered.

🚫The defendant denies hiring the plaintiff, stating that she only requested an estimate for the woodpecker problem.

🎉The defendant had someone else perform the woodpecker eradication work and paid them $297.50.

🔍The judge rules in favor of the defendant, stating that the plaintiff failed to provide proof of authorization for the work.

Did the defendant hire the plaintiff to get rid of the woodpeckers?

—No, the defendant claims she only requested an estimate for the problem.

How much does the plaintiff seek in damages?

—$578.78, the amount owed for the services rendered.

Who ultimately performed the woodpecker eradication work?

—The defendant hired someone else to do the work and paid them $297.50.

What was the judge's ruling in this case?

—The judge ruled in favor of the defendant, stating that the plaintiff failed to provide proof of authorization for the work.

What category does this video fall under?

—4 - Entertainment

00:00The plaintiff claims the defendant hired them to get rid of woodpeckers at her home.

01:21The defendant denies hiring the plaintiff, stating that she only requested an estimate for the woodpecker problem.

03:12The defendant had someone else perform the woodpecker eradication work and paid them $297.50.

06:46The judge rules in favor of the defendant, stating that the plaintiff failed to provide proof of authorization for the work.