A woman orders a dress from a dressmaker for a wedding, being very specific about the material, color, and style of the dress. At the first fitting, the woman is unhappy with the way the dress looks, although it is exactly as she ordered it. The dressmaker makes the requested alterations. After this scene repeats itself several times, the woman decides

to purchase a dress rather than have one custom-made. The dressmaker expects payment for the dress. The customer argues that she should not have to pay, since she isn’t taking the dress.

Q: Does the dressmaker have a halachic right to demand payment?

A: Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 333:8) presents this case: a person tells a craftsman, “Make for me an object and I will purchase it from you.” The item is created, and the customer decides not to make the purchase. Shulchan Aruch rules that although the customer no longer wants the object, he must pay the craftsman if refusing delivery of the item will generate a loss for the craftsman. Nesivos Hamishpat (333:15) questions why the customer is liable only when it will generate a loss for the craftsman. Shulchan Aruch elsewhere (336:2) rules that once a hired worker performs his task, he must be paid even if it turns out that he was hired to work with ownerless property. Accordingly, if the craftsman did his job by making the item, the customer should have to pay him regardless of whether there is a loss. Nesivos answers that there is a difference between hiring a worker and our case where the customer did not hire the craftsman; he merely committed himself to purchase the completed item. Since the craftsman was not working as an employee, he cannot expect to be paid for an object if it was not sold. He is to be reimbursed for his loss since it is categorized as garmi – indirect damage for which one is liable. Based on these concepts, the amount the dressmaker will be paid depends on the language used when she was hired. If she was an employee, she should

be paid the full value of the work she performed. If she sewed the dress so that the woman would purchase it from her, she should only be reimbursed for her loss.