The project deadlines were clearly stated from the very beginning — in the title ("by Wednesday by the end of the day"), in the description, and in the correspondence before the agreement. The contractor saw these conditions and agreed to them when reserving the project.
The formal deadline in Safe was longer than the agreement in the project — this is a feature of the platform's operation (the countdown is in days from the moment of reserving funds). But the agreement was specific and documented in writing in the project, and it was under this deadline that I took on obligations to my client, who had a presentation the next day.
At the time when the site was supposed to be ready, it was not ready even approximately. It was not about minor adjustments, but about major visible problems — broken layout, asymmetrical elements, sections that looked crooked at a basic level. Most of the problems the contractor explained as features of the tool (Elementor), with which, apparently, he did not have enough experience for this type of layout from Figma.
The revisions continued late into the night and the following days, and he did fit into the timer of Safe, but — as stated — the agreed deadlines were missed.
Instead of acknowledging that the agreement in the project was not fulfilled on time, the contractor referred to the formal deadlines of Safe. For me as a client, this is not an argument: my clients do not know and should not know about the internal timers of the platform — they have an agreement with me, and the reputational consequences of the delay fell on me.
Technically, the site was ultimately assembled, and I will fully close the payment.
But for projects with a strict external deadline - I cannot recommend.
And be careful about what you agree on and what legal responsibility he bears.
Is your reputation before your clients worth these stories.