P'ninat Mishpat: Amounts and Conditions of Payment to an Architect – part IV | Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Beit Midrash

Beit Midrash

Sections
Chemdat Yamim
P'ninat Mishpat

קטגוריה משנית

Parashat Hashavua Series'Library Piskei Din (Hebrew)Test Yourself

Case: The plaintiff (=pl), an architect, worked on two projects for the defendant (=def). Regarding each, they dispute the amount due and/or the payment’s timing. Over the last three weeks, we have surveyed various parts of the ruling. Now we deal with appeals [of both sides] that relate to many elements of the ruling. Most of the elements of appeal were rejected, but even a good ruling may have certain elements that can be successfully questioned. We focus on a handful of the issues.

Ruling: Ribbit as part of the price: Def claims that the fee for the second project should have been 66,000 NIS and the 142,000 NIS was because of def’s demand that the payment be put off for years, so that he need not pay the difference because it is forbidden to pay ribbit. Beit din rejects this claim. The itemized stages of payment in the price estimate demonstrate that the payment is for the work, not for waiting. Although def’s agreement is conditional on late payment, it does not turn the charges into late-payment increases, but is a concession regarding time of payment. Additionally, as long as there is not a demand of extra pay for extending the payment until after the completion of the work, it is not ribbit.

A few more percent for hard work in the beginning: The expert who estimated that pl completed 35% of the work when he stopped, said that it is traditional for payment of 10% more than the amount due when stopping after the first stage because the first stage includes extra work, but the first beit din obligated only 35% because there was no proof the beginning work was harder. The appeal beit din noted that according to the division of payments in the estimate, pl stopped working when 50% of the payment was due. While this is not enough to obligate 50%, it lends credence to the idea of adding on a few percent, and so the appeal to obligate 38.5% is accepted.

Payment of VAT: When stating the amount due, the first beit din did not write that coverage of VAT should be added. Def says there is no need for VAT because the payment is for compensation, not work. However, pl is correct that the payment is for professional work rendered, which requires paying VAT, the payment of which falls on the recipient of the services.

Payment plan: The first beit din spread out the payment plan over six payments. The general rule for payment of a beit din ruling is 30 days. It is true that this can be extended when a large amount of money is deemed to require more time to arrange. However, since both the original wait for payment and the length of the adjudication were great, it is not right to make pl wait so long. Therefore, we decide that the payment should be in two installments, a month apart.