He—may Allah have mercy on him—was asked:

What is the ruling concerning someone who has carried out cultivation work on land but has derived no benefit from it?

He answered:

He is entitled to the value of that work after rescission, pending a ruling on whether the arrangement is binding or not. His case is unlike that of a worker engaged to tend an orchard for a share of its fruit, because there is no common basis for drawing an analogy between them.

The distinction is that the subject of the orchard-tending contract is the fruit, which does not yet exist, rather than the work. If he withdraws from the contract before its subject comes into existence, he is entitled to nothing from it. The jurists of our school have explicitly stated that, once the fruit has appeared, he remains entitled to his share of it and is obliged to complete the work.

In a partnership, however, the subjects of the contract are the capital and the work. The capital must already exist. As for the work, if any portion of it has been performed, payment for it is due even if the contract is invalid; upon rescission, a person hired to perform work is entitled to wages for his labour.