Good Evening,
Firstly, I'd like to apologize as it has taken me longer than expected to release this verdict; however, we are here now. Additionally, I want to take this time to thank both parties for their hard work and dedication to the case.
Now, to the verdict.
Plaintiff:
The Plaintiff has brought the Defendant, darkkgrey, to court for the following reasons:
1. The Defendant had "employed" the Plaintiff to make advertisements for their company and did not compensate the Plaintiff for their time/effort.
2. Due to the Minimum Wage/Pay Reform Act, the Plaintiff should have been compensated 10kr per 15 minutes as they had don't work for at least 24 hours.
3. The Defendant did see a price sheet beforehand.
4. The Defendant abruptly closed the ticket without stating they wanted to end services/business relations with the Plaintiff.
Defendant:
The Defendant rebuts the Plaintiff's arguments for the following reasons:
1. The work was never agreed on. In other words, a legally binding agreement/contract was never formed between both parties.
2. There was never a moment when a price was negotiated between both parties.
3. The work done never exceed 24 hours due to timezones and not constantly working.
Verdict:
So this case deals with two different laws, in my opinion. On the one hand, it deals with the Minimum Wage law and whether or not the Plaintiff worked long enough to meet the requirements and receive a minimum wage. Now the law states the following, "This [Minimum Wage] does not apply when; A player is hired to do short-term work that intends to, or does, last less than 24 hours." The key part of this line is the "intends to". That essentially is saying that the work does not necessarily have to be less than 24 hours, but if it intends to or occasionally is less than 24 hours, it still counts. So let's break it down to what the work intends to last and what the work did last. In this particular case, the work tends to last 0-2 business days, it states this on the pricing list. So it could be argued either way that it tends to last less than and more than 24 hours. When it comes to how long this particular service did last, the ticket would appear to be over 24 hours by a few hours (around 10ish). The ticket started at 3:25 AM and was closed at 1:51 PM the next day. However, the bill does not discuss the ticket length or length of communication between parties; the bill discusses the time in which actual work was done. The problem is that it is very unclear and very difficult to figure out how long the Plaintiff actually worked on the logos. The Defense made a point stating that because of the quality, they can't have spent much time on it. However, that is a very baseless argument if you ask me. What didn't help the Plaintiff's case was the little to no counter-argument or proof that somehow shows the Plaintiff truly spent 24 hours on this project. For that reason, I am left with little choice but to side with the Defense in this aspect. Without knowing how much time was truly spent on the project, without evidence to help back up any claims, it is very hard for me to make a call there. Additionally, that is something that would really be the Plaintiff's burden to prove, which they have failed to do so. So let this be known for the future. Keep track of how much time you spend on inquiries. I know of a few companies who ask employees to clock in when they work, or in other words, time themselves. That I believe could solve a few issues. Also, understand this is not the fault of the law but more of an extra step to ensure that the law is properly adhered to.
That is not the end though. The other aspect of this case revolves around the CLF Act (Contract Law Foundation Act). This aspect debates whether or not an actual contract/agreement was made to begin with. In other words, let's say the Plaintiff did work for 24 hours and was eligible to receive minimum wage. If a contract, in some form, was not made between both parties, then no actual employment happened. Therefore, even though the Minimum Wage requirement is met, the "employer" would not be required to compensate the "employee." Although if the minimum wage requirement is met, for most situations, there probably was some form of a contract established. Nonetheless, let's look at this situation. For a contract/agreement to be legally binding it must meet the following criteria, offer, acceptance, consideration, capacity, legality, legal intent, and format. To save time and everyone's boredom, I will focus on the most important one, in this case, acceptance. I also believe that it is relatively clear to see that the other criteria were met, which I can elaborate on for anyone who wishes to discuss this more.
Acceptance is a statement of willingness to enter into a contract offered. It is also described as, "essentially saying yes to the offer," in the CLF Act. Now, although the Defendant never said yes to any offer, they continued relations after understanding the offer, which is that they would pay for a logo or logos. I think it is fair to say, that if the Defendant had been given a logo of their liking, they would have paid. One will argue perhaps that since they were not given a logo of their liking, that could fall under the mirror image rule (an offer must be accepted with no modifications). That however asserts the idea that the offer was for the Defendant to get a logo of their liking. The offer, as I see it, was that they were to be given a logo. This then means that whether or not they like that logo, as long as they are given a logo they must compensate accordingly. Therefore, I do believe an agreement/contract was established; however, let it be known that contracts should still be written out. It is much more easy to see the above criteria in a written contract than through verbal communication. Write Contracts For Everything!!
So, to clarify all of this. I will be ruling in favor of the Plaintiff as a contract was established and they should have been paid. However, I will not be rewarding any relief as I can not clarify whether or not the Plaintiff actually worked over 24 hours.
That was a lot and I hope everything came across clear. If not, please reach out and speak with me about anything discussed in this verdict. I'd be more than happy to talk about it.
I once again wish to thank both parties for their time and work in the courtroom.
That is all,
Case Adjourned.
