Shabbat Parashat Shelach 5784

P'ninat Mishpat: Disagreements over Renovations – part I

Case: The defendant (=def), owner of an old building, had elaborate architectural/engineering plans drawn up to renovate his building. The plaintiff (=pl), a contractor, reviewed the plans, and submitted a detailed (line-by-line pricing per element) estimate for the project of approximately 150,000 NIS plus VAT, which def accepted. After pl mainly finished the work and was paid 110,000 NIS, def raised complaints and discontinued pl’s work. Pl demands additional money for almost finishing the job plus additional money for work done that was not included in the estimate. Def refuses to pay for the “additional work” that appeared in the architectural plans, which pl used as the basis for his estimate. Def also countersued for faulty work. (Ed. note – we will not present the latter very technical topic).

Ruling: Is the price estimate binding? Def claimed that the estimate is not legally binding. In general, Halacha requires a kinyan (act of finalization) in order to make an agreement between parties fully binding. Regarding the hiring of a worker, the beginning of the work serves as a kinyan. This is so even if the agreement was only oral (Tashbetz I:64), and not only can the sides not back out, but specific agreements about elements of the work and remuneration are also binding. The prices found in the estimate are therefore definitely binding, and all the more so after the work was completed, as def agreed that pl worked in accordance with the detailed price estimate. (In fact, the recipient of a service is required to pay for benefit provided to him even without an agreement.)

Was pl required to follow all of the specifications of the architectural plans? There is no question that the plans were the basis for pl’s planning and carrying out the job. Therefore, def claims that the price estimate served just as pricing and a summary for the binding basis, the plans, and pl cannot demand extra payment. Def also demonstrated that there were things that were not mentioned in the estimate that pl did without charging extra.

Beit din rejected def’s claims based on the following arguments that pl raised. Def received price estimates from multiple contractors. Pl presented the lowest estimate, and because it is both detailed and has a price for each element, it cannot be claimed that the bottom-line figure is global for the architectural plans. Def thus chose the combination of extent of work and price that pl provided. Indeed, not all plans received are followed to the fullest extent, especially when cost-cutting is a factor. Regarding those lines in which the estimate mentions that it is to be carried out according to the plans, the plans are binding in their full detail, but not regarding elements in which there is no reference to the plans. It is possible that def misunderstood pl’s intention, but in such a case, the written word is the determinant. On the other hand, beit din dealt with pl’s demand for additional pay for things not in the estimate on a item-by-item basis.

We will continue next time with other elements of the case.

Top of page

Print this page

Send to friend