Work Under a Questionable Agreement

Case:


Ruling: Rep’s calculation of the salary, both in its amount and the idea of transportation, shows that it was not based on the Education Ministry allocations. It would seem, though, that the waiver in the signed memorandum is binding even if pl did not understand its significance (based on Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 45:3). However, in this case, rep led him to believe that his signature was confirming what they had agreed orally. Since that which one is obligated by his signature even without understanding stems from the fact that he did not bother to investigate (S’ma 45:5), it does not apply when he inquired and was misled.
Regarding a case like this, where rep exceeded his authority in making the promises he did, the matter is spelled out in Bava Metzia (76a). When one who was sent to hire a worker told the worker that he would be getting more than the employer had said, then if the worker said that the employer would be responsible for pay, the latter has to pay according to the level of benefit he received from the worker. Thus, def is not held to rep’s unauthorized promises but to the level of benefit. Although def did not personally benefit from pl’s services, others in the community did, and since that is what def asked pl to do, it is considered def’s benefit. Beit din decided that 3,000 shekels a month is a reasonable (or low) salary for pl’s work, and he should be paid at that rate for 15 months.
However, since payment is based on benefit and not an agreement, pl cannot make demands for the time after he quit. Pl is also not entitled to severance pay, which applies to regular employees, not contractors, which pl is considered, as he was paid based on the benefit provided.