But is the contract thereby rescinded? We say: Yes, it is rescinded, but the claimant is entitled to payment for the work.

Is he to be paid as one who worked as a hired laborer, or as one who worked under a reward contract?

If we adopt the first view, we say: the wage is apportioned according to the period for which the contract was made, and he is given his proportional share of the wage, whether it exceeds his share of the stipulated reward or not. The reason is that, once the reward contract is rescinded, we revert to the customary wage.

However, the stronger view is that he should be paid in proportion to the stipulated reward, because this man worked under a reward contract, not as a hired laborer. Thus, we say: had he completed all the work, he would have deserved the entire reward. Suppose the total reward was one hundred riyals and he has now completed two-thirds of the work; he is to be given two-thirds of the hundred, because he accepted this arrangement.

His statement, “If it is rescinded by the worker, he is entitled to nothing,” means that if the rescission comes from the worker, he is entitled to nothing, because he is the one who deprived himself of the reward. For example, if it is said, “Whoever builds this wall will receive one hundred riyals,” and someone undertakes it, but during construction the worker rescinds the reward contract, we say to him: You are entitled to nothing.

But suppose that the offeror would suffer considerable harm because the worker rescinded the reward contract at a time when no workers were available. For instance, other people may have already hired the workers, since workers are plentiful at the beginning of the year but become scarce during the year. This would cause harm to the offeror. In such a case, there would be grounds for holding the worker liable for the harm suffered by the offeror.