A Dispute Between a Contractor and a Client

With Heaven’s help
 I am attaching all the correspondence between us, between a contractor and the client. 
 
 • Clarification: this concerns a structural-shell contractor.
 • A hired a contractor to build a roof-level floor for him, which includes construction over the area of the existing floor below,
 plus pouring a floor over an open space of the floor below and building above it.
 • The contractor’s way of reaching the upper floor, to the part where he was supposed to pour the concrete over
 the open space below, was to build formwork scaffolding from below.
 • Instead of reaching up to the roof floor with the scaffolding, B, who lives on the floor below, asked to join
 A’s order, and asked the contractor to stop at his floor and do a concrete pour for him as well on his floor. Afterwards B asked that he also build
 the blocks for this floor for him.
 • The pour for the floor below was done to the satisfaction of all parties.
 • One day before the blocks were brought to the worksite, B retracted his desire to build the blocks with the contractor, because
 in his view the rate by which the cost of building the blocks was calculated—according to the meters of width multiplied by
 length—was expensive, whereas in practice there is the construction of one wall plus half a wall and a small internal partition, which in the client’s opinion
 does not justify paying according to the full number of meters.
 • And when he clarified with the contractor, the contractor told him that it was fine to retract if the materials had not yet arrived at the site.
 The next day it became clear that indeed the materials had not come to the site, but the contractor claims that the blocks were already on
 the truck, because they are loaded the day before, and that it was no longer possible to cancel the construction.
 • It should be noted that there is no contract between the contractor and the client.
 • Now a situation arose in which the client retracted, while on the other hand the contractor’s claim stood that the client cannot retract because of
 the loading of the blocks onto the truck. At that time the client said that he would clarify whether he is obligated by the order or not.
 • In practice, before the client returned with an answer, the contractor built the blocks without receiving authorization from B
 to build them, perhaps on the understanding that he thought B could not retract. Now he is demanding payment from B for the cost of building
 the blocks according to the calculation of the full meters.
 • In addition to the claim that B cannot retract from the order, the contractor claims that even if the order is not binding,
 there is another claim if they do not pay for the blocks according to the full number of meters.
 • The contractor claims that building the scaffolding from below from the outset without an additional cost was only on the understanding that the pour
 for the floor below would also include blocks, because otherwise the cost of building the scaffolding is high, and he would have
 taken a higher price for the pour. Therefore B must pay the cost of the blocks as agreed, or
 the cost of building the scaffolding for the purpose of the pour, and then pay more for the pour.
 • It should be noted that the scaffolding had to be done in any case for the floor above, only that they also used it
 for the lower floor along the way.
 • To the best of B’s recollection, the agreement between him and the contractor regarding the blocks, which was oral, was after he had already concluded
 with A from the upper floor regarding his contract, and therefore there is no basis for his claim that the scaffolding was built without
 additional cost only because they also closed with him on the blocks at the full price.
 
 The contractor’s response:
 K. A.
 July 23, 2026, 23:13 (3 days ago)
 Me
 
 Good evening. 
 Regarding the blocks: when we spoke about the blocks immediately after the truck arrived, you did not say not to do it. You said, “Why did it arrive? After all, we did not finalize,” and I explained to you that it was on the truck, and since then you said nothing, including saying not to build, etc. 
 Since then you did not contact me at all. 
 
 We did the blocks only in the last two weeks, meaning that you had plenty of time to say not to do it. 
 And suddenly, once we were able to do it after the roof pour, 
 and then we demand payment, you say, “I did not want it.” 
 
 B. From the outset, Mrs. K. said that the construction was also with you, although it was not finalized regarding the blocks. 
 
 C. I no longer remember when we did speak about blocks and when not; there were simply many changes—yes blocks, in the end no, afterwards yes, etc., etc. 
 
 D. The contractor said that there is an addition for scaffolding, and since we are doing blocks, he would absorb it in the price of the blocks. 
 And if there were no blocks, there would have been an addition for the scaffolding. 
 
 E. Also regarding the price of the pour, we spoke about 2,100, and you decided that 2,000 had been agreed. 
 
 F. Although it is not many blocks, 
 entering that place from outside the building was literally a matter of mortal danger,
 and access to the place was with a crane. 
 Another point: 
 It cannot be that you receive only the benefits because they are building above you and you join in, 
 but the expenses are on them. 
 Please note that the price of 2,900, including internal partitioning, is also for the floor above, 
 and it is not that only by you the price is like this 
 and for them it is cheaper. 
 
 The client’s response:
 A. To the best of my recollection, I spoke with you about it immediately afterward and told you that I would clarify with a rabbi what I need to do. 
 I admit that I did not get around to dealing with it; I thought that you had dropped it. Two weeks ago I spoke with Mrs. Kravitz, and she told me that you had said to her incidentally that you were going to build for me, so I told her to tell you to speak with me before you do it. Now I understand that she did not manage to pass the message on to you.
 In all honesty, I did not think that you would build it before clarifying with me again. 
 
 B. Correct, from the outset I wanted the pour already with Mrs. Kravitz, but when I wanted the blocks, that was after it had already been signed with Mrs. K. Therefore I say that he knew from the outset that he needed scaffolding for the upper floor, and he did not say before that that he wanted to charge extra for it. In any case, it is not stipulated in the contract that if they do not do blocks then he will ask for an addition for the scaffolding; he cannot suddenly come and say so. 
 
 C. Regarding the price of the pour, by phone we agreed on 2,000 for the pour and 900 for the blocks. Mrs. K. also remembered it that way, and then when the contract arrived it was written there as 2,100, and then you spoke with her and told her that she was right but that you had no strength to fight with the contractor about it; that is what I understood from her. 
 
 D. I have no problem; I agree that it may be that the access is difficult, but still, in my opinion, that does not justify this price. 
 
 E. Heaven forbid that I did not want to pay; I wanted us to reach a fair middle ground on the price. 
 
 I plan to send all the correspondence to a rabbi, if you want, 
 and if you want to present the story from your point of view, add it and I will send him everything. 

 The contractor’s response: 

Another point: 
 I do not think that because the contractor erased four words, this turns it into there being no contract. 
 I think that regarding the structural shell there is no warranty period and no future responsibility, except for very significant damage, and that is what he erased. 
 B. We already spoke about the fact that all of your construction is written in the contract with K., because they handled everything at the beginning. 
 
 C. What amount is acceptable from your perspective? 
 
 17.32×900 = 15,588, the cost of the block and construction.
 
 As I understand it, Mrs. K. said to take from you 17,500 or something like that. 
 Regarding the 100 of the structural shell, we managed to settle it, and the price is 2,000, and that was already a concession. 
 In any case, for you it comes out to a difference of 850 NIS. 

 The client’s response: Good week.
 As far as I am concerned, we have put the sides in writing. 
 My claim is that you did not inform me about the construction, and from my perspective I did not want it.
 Your claim is that you thought that I did want it, or that you did not know clearly that I wanted it, and even if you did not know, then I need to pay for the scaffolding, which we did not stipulate in advance, and for the mortal danger to the Arab workers.
 I suggest that you ask Y. what he wants.
 There are two options: either I send the question to the rabbi, with you copied, together with all the correspondence between us, and ask what in his opinion I need to pay, and whatever he says I will do, for better or for worse;
 or we reach an agreement on a reasonable amount, and peace upon Israel. 
 Good week. 
 
 The contractor’s response: He wants a Beit Din. 
 
 
 We would very much be happy to receive an answer.

Shalom u’vrachah. 

The contractor is correct that a Beit Din is needed here, or at least an arbitrating dayan. It is impossible to do this without the presence of both parties. 

This is not a halachic question, but rather a factual clarification with both parties: what was said, to whom it was said, whether the agreement remained in force or one of the parties retracted, etc. 

However, according to what the contractor wrote, the dispute here is over 850 NIS, and the cost of opening a case in Beit Din is several hundred shekels, as is the cost of each hearing for the purpose of clarifications and testimony, so it is possible that you will be left with no gain after the ruling at all. 

For your consideration.