P'NINAT MISHPAT: QUITTING AFTER PREPARING INCOMPLETE PLANS – PART I

Case: The defendant (=def) hired the plaintiff (=pl) to emend an architect’s plans for expansion and serve as the job’s engineer for 10,000 NIS. After receiving a 1,500 NIS down payment, doing significant work, and paying a draftsman 1,800 NIS, it was discovered that a neighbor (=nghb) submitted expansion plans that def felt compromised his project. When he asked pl to help oppose nghb’s plan, pl realized that he was hired to do engineering work for nghb. Pl refused to oppose nghb’s plans, which he said were fine, and def delayed his project open-endedly, after grumbling about conflict of interest, until there was clarity about ngbh’s expansion. Pl asked for additional partial pay, and def was reluctant to pay a substantial sum, claiming that pl did next to nothing. Pl said that under the circumstances, he would not continue with def, and def said that if so, he will not pay anything.  

Ruling: Conflict of interest: Def claimed that pl should have offered to leave the job because of his involvement with nghb and unwillingness to fight him, and to return the down payment. Pl countered that there is no conflict of interest, as he represents nghb not in a planning role but just for technical engineering work, and that he need not oppose plans he thinks are fine.

Beit din does not think there are grounds to nullify the agreement due to conflict of interest. First, almost all of the work was done before nghb’s plans became an issue. Undoing the agreement retroactively would require def to convince them that he was unfit to do the job he was hired for (mekach taut), which he did not do. Furthermore, continuing to work with pl after finding out about the issue waives any right of mekach ta’ut (see Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 232:3). Second, pl was not hired to present objections to others’ plans. Although pl justified his refusal with the fact he did not agree with the objection, this does not conflict with his right to refuse the task for no reason. Since def did not claim that pl was incapable of doing a proper job at what he was asked for, there is no mekach ta’ut.

Was pl justified in quitting? Whether pl was justified seems dependent on whether he had a right to demand payment when he did. The contract lists four times for payment: 15% at signing, 50% upon presenting the plans to the regional board, 15% upon presenting engineering plans, and 20% upon completion of the job. Had the project not been frozen, pl admits that it was too early for further payment. The contract does not make provisions for early payment due to delays, and while we might assume it for def’s frivolous delay, here there were extenuating circumstances. Notably, it is not unusual in Israeli commercial life to have to wait months for payment. Since it is difficult to extract money when a contract is unclear (Shulchan Aruch, CM 42), def might have prevailed in a din Torah on the timing. Nevertheless, pl was justified in quitting, because def justified his non-payment with an unreasonable claim (as beit din verified) that pl had done practically nothing, which made it very possible def would continue to resist justified claims in the future.

Top of page

Print this page

Send to friend