Siman 221

One who seeks to buy an item from his fellow: the seller says, "I am selling it to you for two hundred," and the buyer says, "I will only buy it for a maneh." This one went to his house and that one to his house, and afterwards they gathered and this one pulled the object without specification. If the seller is the one who requested the buyer and gave him the object, he only gives a maneh, for since he was the one requesting the fulfillment of the sale and gave it without specification, he certainly consented to the intent of the buyer regarding what he previously wanted to give. And if the buyer was the one requesting, such as if he came and pulled the object without specification, he must give two hundred, for he certainly agreed to the intent of the seller. This is as we say regarding the kiddushin of a woman: when he wanted to betroth a woman on the condition that he give her a maneh, and she says on the condition that he give her two hundred, and they went away and afterwards gathered and he betrothed her without specification—if he said to her, "Come and I will betroth you," he gives two hundred; and if she said, "Come and betroth me," he gives a maneh, as is written in Even HaEzer siman 29. And so too in all matters, such as one who wants to hire a worker and said, "I will give you a dinar per day," and the worker requests two dinars per day, and they went away from each other and afterwards gathered and he worked without specification—if the employer requested him to work, he pays two dinars per day; and if the worker requested the employer, or if he came and worked without specification, he only takes a dinar. And so too regarding contract work, and so too in all things in the world: when they were initially divided on the details and afterwards joined together and did not speak of the details, the matter depends on who was the initiator afterwards to fulfill the matter; presumably, he agreed to the second party.

And if initially there was a fixed price between them, for example, they agreed on such and such for the purchase, and before the kinyan one of them retracted—for example, the seller said, "I do not wish to give it for this price unless you add such and such," and the purchase was canceled for the time being—and afterwards, after some duration, they returned and joined together and he performed a meshikhah on the purchase without specification, he certainly acquired it based on the first fixed price. This is even if the buyer was the one who initiated, and it is not similar to the previous law we stated where we say that he presumably agreed to the mind of the seller, for there, there was no fixed price. But when there was a fixed price, even though the kinyan was not finalized then and the seller retracted, nevertheless, afterwards when they agreed without specification, certainly both of them agreed to the first fixed price [Sma]. And we say similarly regarding the law of workers: that when one hired the worker to give him four dinars, and the labor became cheaper and the employer retracted, and the worker went and appeased the employer to work for him and worked without specification, he gives him four dinars. Even though previously he did not want to give more than two dinars, nevertheless, since there was a fixed price beforehand, we say that they agreed based on the first fixed price, as written in siman 332.

And there are those who disagree regarding this, for regarding a worker we do not state this law except in a place where the worker has a grievance against the employer's retraction, such as where he lost work because of this; but in a place where there is no grievance, they do not have this law. Therefore, in a sale, when the seller retracted before the kinyan where a grievance is not applicable in this, we do not follow the first price agreement, and if the buyer came afterward and performed meshikhah without specification, we say that he agreed to the intent of the seller, as in the previous law [Taz and see Be'er Sheva there subsection 21 and delve into this]. And there are those who say that even in a sale the matter depends on a grievance, based on what has been explained in siman 204, that even with mere words there is an issue of being "lacking in faith," and since they agreed upon the price agreement, the one who retracts is "lacking in faith" and one may bear a grievance against him. Therefore, we say that he performed meshikhah based on the intent of the first price agreement, and so the seller agreed. Therefore, when the market price changed and became dearer, according to the one who holds that there is no issue of being "lacking in faith" in this, his law is as in section 1 [Ktzot HaChoshen]. Nevertheless, this grievance is not like a worker who lost because of him, and therefore the first opinion appears primary. And when there is a denial between a seller and a buyer, it will be explained in siman 222.