Shabbat Parashat Beshalach 5785

P'ninat Mishpat: Questions of Changing Work Orders

Case: The defendant (=def) hired the plaintiff (=pl) to build his home for 1,720,000 NIS. Throughout the project, def asked for many changes in the building plans, and def and his inspector (=ins) complained that many elements of the work were done improperly. Pl quit the job toward the end. While def paid almost the full contract price and pl admits that a little work was not completed, he is suing for 345,638 NIS, mainly for changes and additions to the plans. Def agrees to about half of the charges for changes. [There are many small and technical disagreements; we will deal only with three of them.]

Ruling: Cause and consequences of pl’s quitting – Pl claims that the number of changes and lack of clear plans made it highly inefficient for pl to bring in subcontractors and workers. Def claims that the number of changes was appropriate for the project.

An employer cannot change the work ordered to more difficult work (Tosefta, Bava Metzia 7:3), both regarding a hired worker and a contractor. Multiple witnesses who were involved in the work testified that the changes and lack of detailed plans made the work much harder than usual. While def may make changes, it justifies pl receiving commensurate compensation. Since def refused to give what we consider fair payment, pl was justified in stopping to work and receive full payment for what he did, without deducting the extra expense of bringing others to finish.

The authority of ins: The contract states that ins will decide if and how much should be charged for changes to the work. However, beit din rules that pl should be able to appeal such decisions to beit din, who should overrule ins if and only if his decision is clearly unreasonable, based on market realities. This is in line with the Shulchan Aruch’s ruling (Choshen Mishpat 227:25) that if a sales price was supposed to be decided by an appraiser and he was off from the standard price enough to be ona’ah, the laws of ona’ah impact the sale. The Aruch Hashuchan (ad loc. 26) explains that he did not mean to rely upon the appraiser if he was “off base.” This can be assumed to be so here especially because ins was hired and paid for by def.

Damage to mechanism to lower and raise blinds: An electrical overload toward the end of the building damaged some systems that were attached at the time, and def demands to be compensated for it. Experts who testified said that the main problem was a defective circuit breaker, which is rare (app. 1/1,000) considering the brand used was reputable. The expert brought by def claimed that while most electricians do not check such things, it is proper to check that the circuit breaker is working before attaching appliances.  

A contractor has the status of a paid watchman in regard to damages, who is exempt only for oness (extenuating circumstances) (Shulchan Aruch, CM 306:4). This case is not fully oness, as there was a way to check, but the important thing is that the problem is very rare and most professionals do not check for it. What is required of a paid worker is to act like professionals, which is why the electrician and pl are exempt.

Top of page

Print this page

Send to friend