The Frieds’ air conditioner was not working. A technician came and examined it. “It seems the fan motor went,” he said. “I’ll have to replace it. The part will cost $125 and the labor another $150.”
The technician installed a new motor, but the air conditioner still didn’t work. He examined the unit some more, but could not resolve the issue. “Very strange,” he said. “I’ll have to send someone else.”
Meanwhile, Mr. Fried called another technician he knew. “Our air conditioner is not working,” he said. “Someone already replaced the fan motor, but didn’t solve the issue.”
“I’ll come take a look,” said the second technician. He examined the wiring of the unit carefully. “I think I found the problem,” he said. “It’s something in the electrical system.” He fixed it, and the unit worked.
“There was no need to replace the motor?” asked Mr. Fried.
“The problem was unrelated to the motor,” said the technician.
Mr. Fried called the first technician. “Another technician was able to fix the unit,” he said. “The electrical system was the problem, not the motor. Can you put the old one back?”
“I already disposed of it,” said the technician. “Anyway, once I installed the new motor, I can’t return it. I’ll charge you only the cost of the motor.”
“Why should I have to pay anything?” asked Mr. Fried. “You replaced a part that wasn’t necessary to replace!”
“I did what any technician would do,” replied the technician. “There’s no reason I should lose the cost of the motor. I could also charge you also for the visit!”
The two came before Rabbi Dayan.
“Does Mr. Fried owe the cost of the motor?” asked the technician. “What about the labor?”
“The Gemara [B.K. 99b] teaches that a paid professional who was not careful in his work is liable for damage he caused to the item,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “Even when not liable for damage – as when it is unclear whether the damage resulted from carelessness – he is still not entitled to his wages.” (C.M. 306:4-6; Sma 335:9)
“Moreover,” continued Rabbi Dayan, “when the work is predicated on accomplishing the goal, such as appliance repair, even if circumstances beyond the worker’s control prevented him from completing the task, he is not entitled to his wages if the employer didn’t benefit from his efforts. However, if the employer benefited from the partial job, he has to pay for the part that was done.” (Nesivos 335:3; Pischei Choshen, Sechirus 12:25-26; Piskei Din Yerushalayim vol. VI, p. 30)
“There was no benefit here,” said Mr. Fried.
“Although the technician did not succeed in repairing the air conditioner, he improved it by installing a new motor,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “A motor has an expected lifetime; in a number of years the old motor might have had to be replaced, anyway. The new motor is expected to work for many more years.”
“Thus, the installation of the new motor is a repair that was not warranted but did add value to the unit,” added Rabbi Dayan. “When someone does such work that partially increases the value of an item, he gets reimbursed for his expenses, in accordance with the increase in value.” (C.M. 306:3; 375:1,6; Nesivos 375:2)
“So I have to pay him the $125 for the motor?” asked Mr. Fried.
“Not the full value, since the increase in value is not the full cost of the motor,” answered Rabbi Dayan. “The old motor could have continued working for a few more years. Furthermore, other problems with the air conditioner might require replacing it entirely in the future, well during the lifetime of the new motor. I would say to evaluate the increase of value at about $100, which would also take into consideration part of the cost of labor if the motor would have needed to be replaced in the future.”
