Take a deep breath before reading the next sentence because it's a long one...
So, IYHO, if Homeowner A says to Homeowner B's contractor, within earshot of a co-worker of said contractor, "Please make sure that you do not install that fence on my side of the line", but does not obtain a signed document from the contractor attesting to what was said, and the contractor and said co-worker in fact do install the fence on Homeowner A's property, the judge may take the word of the contractor and his crew over the word of Homeowner A, whose property was encroached upon.
If that was actually the case, then I guess any contractor could do whatever they wanted and then lie to the judge about having a conversation. What's the difference between the contractor and crew lying about what was said in an conversation that actually happened vs. simply making up a conversation that never occurred? As long as the homeowner can't prove that he never had the conversation, he would lose right?
IMHO, if there was a case of Homeowner A said-Homeowner B's contractor said, and Homeowner A was the one whose property was encroached upon by Homeowner B's contractor, the judge will side with Homeowner A. To side with the contractor puts us into the realm of allowing the taking of someone else's property with nothing more than the contractor saying "Your Honor, he said I could. Ask my partner, he'll back me up."
If you choose to believe that the judge will side with the contractor and his crew over the person whose property was encroached upon.
It may *remind* you of the situation with your Citation, but this case is so different that's not even worth comparing the two.