P'ninat Mishpat: A Contractor’s Leaving the Job in the Middle – part II | 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 his own mistaken underpricing. Pl refused, and def stopped the work. Pl demands a return of money that exceeded the work done and compensation for building flaws.

Ruling: [Last time we explained that def was not justified in leaving the job, gave the formula for the amount of money def had deserved to get, and presented calculations with the help of an expert. We continue with additional specific claims.]
Post construction cleanup: The neighbors understandably complained about debris, cement stuck to surfaces, solar panels not returned to their place, etc. when def left. Beit din instructed def to clean up; he did not do this in the time allotted. Beit din agreed that pl can hire someone to do the work and be reimbursed. Beit din’s expert calculated the proper allotment (appr. 15,000 NIS).
Def’s tools: Pl is holding on to some of def’s tools in lieu of payment from def. Def argues that even tools that were bought for the project are his property and wants to use them elsewhere. Poskim discuss a creditor’s seizure of a debtor’s possessions without beit din’s authorization. According to the Mordechai (Bava Kama 30), he can only seize an object to which he has a specific ownership claim. The Rivash (396) says he can seize other objects as long as the debt is not from a loan, and the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 97:14) permits the seizure if it is done as "collateral." This means that the seizer’s intention is to follow up the seizure with a claim in beit din (Netivot Hamishpat 4:3). In our case, beit din finds that pl had the right at the time to withhold some tools, but now that beit din has jurisdiction over the case, she must return them.
Pipe inspector: Def ordered a pipe inspector to evaluate how to connect pipes in what he calls a sensitive plumbing area and requests compensation to be added to his work’s base price. Pl denies that def asked permission and claims that the work was unnecessary and that she understands that def’s friend did it free of charge. Beit din sent the specifications to their expert, and his findings are that bringing the inspector was a prudent step. Therefore, even if def did not get explicit authorization, he should be reimbursed at the going rate (3,500 NIS according to the expert), because he provided benefit. This is so even if def did not pay the inspector out of hand. Professional friends often exchange favors, so that def may be paying with past or future work.
We will continue next week with other elements of the dispute.