P'ninat Mishpat: A Contractor’s Leaving the Job in the Middle – part I | Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Beit Midrash

Beit Midrash

Sections
Chemdat Yamim
P'ninat Mishpat

קטגוריה משנית

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

Case: The plaintiff (=pl) hired the defendant (=def) to do extensive renovations to her apartment for around 750,000 NIS. Def began the work and over time received around 370,000 NIS from pl. Pl claims that, at some point, she began becoming suspicious that the amount of money def was requesting was not in line with the work he had done and that def was barely on the site and was well behind schedule. She demanded that def justify in writing the money requested in relation to the work completed. Def did not do this and also demanded an increase in pay due to pl asking for additions and def’s mistaken underpricing. Pl refused, and sometime later def stopped the work. Pl demands a return of money that exceeded the work done and compensation for building flaws.

Ruling: It is critical to determine whether def’s decision to stop working was justified, because if it was not, def receives pay for his partial work in a manner of "his hand is on the bottom" (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 333:4). Specifically, we subtract from the amount due for the whole job the cost of having someone else finish the job (which, practically, is always more than it would have cost the original worker).
In this case, both the claims and the communications make it clear that def left the job because pl refused to advance more money. According to the contract (and normal practice), payment comes periodically after certain percentages of the work are done. In answer to beit din’s question, def said that he finished between a third and a half of the project. Pl paid almost half of the full price of the project, so that pl was not in significant arrears even according to def’s claims. This is exacerbated by the fact that pl asked def to prepare a staged payment schedule, which he did not do, and that def left the job when the apartment was susceptible to water seepage as the rainy season was beginning. Therefore, def was not justified in leaving the job, which has the consequence mentioned above.
According to beit din’s expert’s report, the value of the whole project is around 840,000 NIS, some 90,000 NIS more than the contract price (this difference of around 12% would not be grounds for claims of mispricing even if applicable). Def completed 31% of the job, and the expense of finishing the job by others is 585,000 NIS, so that def should get around 165,000 NIS for the work he did. To this we add 16,000 NIS, for what def did beyond what was included in the original plans. We must reduce the price of faulty work. Def did not challenge pl’s claim that she paid just over 370,000 NIS.
Originally, pl wanted def to continue at least part of the work, but later changed her mind and wanted to part ways. At the earlier stage, beit din gave instructions to def about partial work he must do for pl, but def ignored beit din’s instructions, including after beit din granted him an extension to do the work. Therefore, beit din accepts pl’s desire to move on from def.
We will continue next time with other elements of the dispute.