Aryeh needed some repairs done on the pathway to his house, which he was renting out. He sought recommendations for an experienced, reliable contractor and received good reports about Josh, who provided a reasonable price quote.
Aryeh bargained for a lower price, which Josh finally agreed to, and they closed.
One of Josh’s workers, Manny, had recently begun to work independently. Josh thought this would be a good way to help Manny get underway and suggested that he handle the job. Manny accepted.
Josh came over a few times to inspect Manny’s work and make sure it was done according to standard and to his satisfaction. Here and there Josh pointed out spots that needed to be done better or redone.
When the work was completed, Josh called Aryeh and showed him the work, in the presence of Manny. Aryeh wrote out a check to Josh who provided the formal receipt.
Some years later, the path began sinking slightly in certain places. Aryeh called Josh to complain. Josh told him the actual work had been done by Manny and provided his number.
Manny insisted that he did the job properly, according to standard, and that Josh even inspected the job and approved it. He explained that earth moves a lot in that area, and it is common that after a while there will be slight settling. The warranty period is over, so he had no responsibility to correct the job.
Aryeh complained to Josh for handing the work over to Manny. Josh insisted, though, that he trusted Manny and that the job was done according to standard and approved by him.
Aryeh refused to accept this. He summoned Josh before Rabbi Dayan and demanded a refund of his money. “I chose Josh because I wanted an experienced contractor,” he claimed. “You had no right to hand the job over to Manny!”
“This issue can be resolved from a case [B.K. 56a] regarding the liability of a head shepherd,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “A guardian who handed an entrusted item over to others is usually liable, but a head shepherd who is known to have others working under him is not directly liable, but rather the shepherd to whom he handed the animal. The owner cannot claim that he did not want his animal handed over to others, since it is known that this is the practice of the head shepherd.” (C.M. 291:22; 396:9)
“Similarly,” continued Rabbi Dayan, “contractors often do not do the actual work by themselves but rather supervise and have underlings do the work. Certainly in this case, since the worker was one the contractor used on a regular basis and had confidence in, and the contractor even checked the work and took formal responsibility for the payment, you cannot demand that he should have done the work himself.”
“Furthermore, even if the contractor had no right to hand the work over, you would still have to pay for the job, based on yored l’sedei chaveiro,” added Rabbi Dayan. “The work was needed and you were willing to pay for it, so that even had the worker acted of his own accord, you would have to pay him the current going rate, provided that the work was done properly.” (C.M. 375:1)
“With regard to your complaint that problems later developed with the work,” concluded Rabbi Dayan, “since it was done according to standard and the warranty period is already over, you cannot demand that it be redone. Any work done is with the understanding of the customary local practice, unless explicitly stated otherwise.” (C.M. 331:2)