Beit Midrash
  • Sections
  • Chemdat Yamim
  • P'ninat Mishpat
קטגוריה משנית
undefined
Case: The plaintiff (=pl), a lawyer, worked for and had intricate financial connections with the defendant (=def). There are two loan contracts of pl lending 250,000 NIS to def, which seem basically confirmed by bank transfers. Def made several significant payments to pl, but the sides dispute the nature of several of them, with possibilities including payment of salary. Def also has claims on rental fees at his offices from which pl continued to work after his employment ended, as well as deductions for various grievances about pl’s flawed work. This final installment relates to def’s counter claim that pl put in many fewer hours than he was required to and spent some of his time on private jobs. Pl responds that it is difficult for him to work without interruptions because of attention deficiency, but that def was fully aware of his work style, and continued to pay him without comment, and this is because he was extremely successful in the work he did.

Ruling: A worker’s requirement to work diligently for his employer is so basic that the mishna does not spell it out. The Rambam (Sechirut 13:7, accepted by Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 337:20), refers to incomplete work as "stealing the work of the employer," and the Maggid Mishneh says that the source is: "It is simple." Chazal do give examples of prohibitions on improper moonlighting and tell stories of those who excelled in their care (see Tosefta, Bava Metzia 8:9).
One can wonder what it is that the lazy worker is stealing – the work due the employer, as the worker becomes acquired to a certain degree, or the money he needs to pay? There is actually a machloket Rishonim whether there is some element of a worker being acquired (Rambam, Mechira 13:15) or not (Tosafot, Kiddushin 17a), unless he is an eved ivri (see Netivot Hamishpat 203:7). Mesilat Yesharim (Nekiut, 11) sees it the first way, and the Tashbetz (III:109) sees it the latter, saying that he may not have to work, but then he cannot ask for pay for what he did not do.
Pl admits to not doing the amount of work he was contracted to do, and this was incorrect behavior. However, this does not enable def, after years of pl’s work, to demand back that which he paid. Rather, def continued to employ pl without even warning of the consequences of his work habits, even though he was aware of them. This engenders mechila (relinquishing of rights) on the arguably extra money that he paid. Apparently, def indeed decided that pl’s partial work was worth the money he was paying for it. Therefore, this attempt of def to subtract for alleged overpaying is rejected.
Many other claims of def for faulty work by pl were rejected due to lack of evidence.



Popular Lessons
Popular Lessons
Recent Lessons
Recent Lessons
את המידע הדפסתי באמצעות אתר yeshiva.org.il