[SilasX]

Courts commonly rule on intent, and laws generally have an intent discernable from the language of the legislation or the records of is legislative debate. This gives courts a way to disambiguate unclear cases like this one, and it's typically vital to have some intent to fall back on, since laws don't make sense otherwise.

These confused rulings are exactly what you expect in the absence of such a mooring. They can't give a reason why my rules A or B are absurd, except for whether they match some hard-to-parse guidelines.

Example: If the employer requires you to bring your own tools, that somehow makes you more of a contractor, even though that's a greater burden on the worker, but someone decided that such instances "feel" more like contractors. Exactly what confused governance and legislation look like.