to take orchards under musāqāh agreements, whereas there is now little demand. Should the worker not be held liable for the loss thereby incurred by the owner?

The answer is: yes; we may say that he is liable for it. Accordingly, if the worker terminates the agreement for a valid excuse—for example, if he runs out of money, or if he has a servant who dies or runs away, leaving him unable to complete the work himself—we say that he is excused and bears no liability. But if he has no excuse and the owner’s purpose is thereby frustrated, then he should be held liable; otherwise, he must be required to complete the work.

This applies before the fruit appears. If the agreement is terminated after the fruit has appeared, the owner has no right to terminate it, and the worker likewise must be required to complete the work. In other words, the agreement becomes binding once the fruit has appeared, because the worker has now become a partner in the fruit. The owner cannot dismiss him, nor may the worker be allowed to terminate the agreement unless he agrees to do so without compensation, in which case there is no problem.

Thus, if the worker says, “I am now unable to continue,” he may do so on condition that he relinquishes his right and says, “I do not want anything.” Therefore, before the fruit appears, as stated previously, if the owner terminates the agreement, he owes the worker the customary wage; according to our view, he owes him a proportionate amount of the share for which he had contracted. If the worker terminates it before the fruit appears, he is entitled to nothing, because he has accepted that for himself. But is the worker liable to the owner? The answer is: if he terminates it for a valid excuse, he bears no liability; but if he terminates it in order to cause harm, then he should be held liable.

After the fruit has appeared, the owner has no right to terminate the agreement, while the worker may