Print this Article
HaRav Yishai Natan
I was scheduled to have my pool opened for the summer next week. This morning, I walked outside to my backyard and noticed that my pool had already been opened. I immediately called my pool company, and they told me that they had not yet come and that I was still scheduled for next week.
I informed them that someone had already opened my pool and therefore I no longer needed their services. They responded that they had already turned away other customers because my appointment slot had been reserved, and that I would still be responsible to pay them.
In addition, it turned out that the person who opened my pool was actually supposed to open my neighbor’s pool, but he mistakenly opened mine instead. Now my neighbor is claiming that I must pay his pool company.
First of all, his pool company charges $400 to open a pool, while mine only charges $350. Secondly, do I have to pay him at all, since I never hired him and the entire situation resulted from his own mistake?
Am I obligated to pay the pool company that mistakenly opened my pool?
And am I required to compensate my original pool company for canceling the appointment?
The Gemara discusses a case of ”Yored” (b’m 101a)— someone who enters another person’s property and performs beneficial work without being explicitly hired. If the owner benefits from the work and is pleased with the result, he is obligated to compensate the worker for the benefit received.
This halacha is in the Shulhan Aruch (Hoshen Mishpat 375), where Maran rules that when someone improves another person’s property without permission, if the owner benefits and would have wanted such work done, payment is required.
Therefore, since the pool owner clearly benefits from having the pool opened, and he intended to hire someone for that exact service anyway, he cannot claim that the work has no value to him. Even though the worker acted by mistake and was never directly hired, the homeowner nevertheless received measurable benefit.
However, because there was no formal agreement regarding price, the regular full rate is not automatically owed. The Din is that Yado Al Hatahtona— the worker is at a disadvantage regarding compensation. As explained in the Gemara and brought in Shulhan Aruch (ibid.) the worker receives only the lower customary market value for such labor.
Accordingly, even if this company normally charges $400, you would only be obligated to pay the lower standard rate charged by similar pool companies in the area, since no price was agreed upon beforehand.
One might say that you would have to pay at least $350 though, even if cheaper companies exist. The reason one normally pays only the lowest available rate is because he can argue that he would have hired the cheapest worker available. In this case, though, you already revealed that you were willing to pay $350 to have your pool opened. Therefore, you can no longer claim that you would have chosen a cheaper company, and you would still be obligated to pay at least $350. However, there is no proof for this theory and we cannot force the extra $50. It also seems like the the poskim that if a person was not hired, he always pays the least amount because at the end of the day, he didn’t hire him. In your case, you would only have to pay $300 since there are same tier companies who charge that amount.
Regarding paying your original pool company for canceling, the company is correct that when a worker is hired and the employer cancels, Maran writes in Shulhan Aruch (333:2) that the worker may be entitled to payment as a Poel Batel — an idle worker.
In this case, however, that likely would not apply. First of all, it is very possible that during the busy pool season the company can easily fill your appointment slot with another customer. If so, they did not suffer any monetary loss and would have no financial claim against you. At most, they may have a claim of Ta’arumot — a complaint that you caused them inconvenience and extra effort to find another customer.
However, there would be no monetary claim here or even a claim of Ta’arumot, since you were an Oness. The situation was completely beyond your control. Maran there states that when the employer cancels due to circumstances beyond his control, he bears no responsibility, even in a case where the worker cannot replace the lost work.
In conclusion, you are Hayav to pay $300 to your neighbor’s pool company, but are not Hayav to pay your pool company.