Josh owned a small commercial building. There was a serious crack in the sidewalk, which had to be repaired, so he engaged a contractor who filed with the Department of Transportation (DOT) for a permit.
“They refuse to issue me a permit,” the contractor told Josh. “You seem to have an outstanding sidewalk violation.”
“I’m not aware of any violation,” replied Josh. “Do you have details?”
“No,” replied the contractor. “I couldn’t get any information.”
Josh contacted the DOT about the supposed violation. After many tries and waiting in line, he finally was told that someone would contact him with some information, but it could take up to 30 days.
Josh wanted to fix the broken sidewalk quickly, so he hired an expeditor, Chaim, to track down whether he had an open sidewalk violation. Josh paid Chaim the fee, and he ran a report.
“The report does not show any violation,” Chaim told Josh. “If there were any sidewalk violations, this report would show them!”
Three weeks later, a DOT rep notified Josh that there was an outstanding sidewalk violation dating back to 1998.
“That problem was repaired years ago!” Josh exclaimed.
“That may be,” replied the rep, “but the violation was never officially dismissed.”
Josh called Chaim. “The city said that there was a violation from 1998,” he said. “How come the report didn’t show it?”
“That’s a long time ago!” answered Chaim. “The system goes back 20 years, and this violation predates the system.”
“I would like my fee refunded,” said Josh. “The DOT still has a record of this open violation. I paid you for a service that I didn’t get!”
“Our system is the current one used by everyone,” argued Chaim. “I ran the check according to industry standards.”
“Even so,” insisted Josh, “your report was useless. You even assured me that if there was a violation it would show up! If I hadn’t turned myself to the DOT I’d be nowhere!”
Josh and Chaim turned to Rabbi Dayan and asked:
“Must Chaim refund the fee for the report?”
“A worker who performed his assigned task properly is entitled to his wages, whether the employer benefited from the work or not,” replied Rabbi Dayan said. “For example, the Gemara (B.K. 116a) states that if someone hired a worker to bring medicine for a critically ill patient, but if the patient died or recovered meanwhile, the worker must be paid fully” (C.M. 335:3).
“Similarly, if a person hires an advocate, broker or shadchan to petition on his behalf and sets a salary, without stipulating the successful completion of the matter, and the worker toiled as expected, Chavos Yair rules that the worker is entitled to his salary even if he didn’t succeed, if commensurate with the effort expended” (Pischei Teshuvah 264:1).
“Therefore, a person who is hired to run a report is entitled to his fee for performing the check, whether it yields results or not.
“However if a worker does not do his job properly and the employer has to redo it, the employer is required to pay only if, and what, he benefited from the work” (Ketzos 305:2; Nesivos 335:3).
“When the contract does not stipulate a certain standard of work, it depends on whether such work is considered acceptable according to common industry standards.
“Thus, since Chaim’s check failed to identify the necessary information, it depends whether he ran the report according to industry standards. If it was according to standards, he is entitled to his fee, even if the report did not yield proper results and Josh did not benefit from it.
“If there is a dispute between the employer and worker whether the work was done according to industry standards,” concluded Rabbi Dayan, “it is like any other claim, that hamotzi meichaveiro alav hare’ayah” (Nesivos Sachir 30:12).
Verdict: A worker who completes his required task satisfactorily according to industry standards is entitled to his fee, whether or not the employer benefited from his work.