However, it is possible for him to demand the third party the beneficiary of the work to pay, thus, he has three choices:

(a) Revoke the contract and demand for the agreed price of the work.
(b) Approve the contract and demand for the cost of work done for the third party or ask the third party for the cost of work done for him, the latter case is objectionable. If he works for someone else by means of contract, or JU'ALA, the owner of the work has one of the two former (a) or (b) choices and approving this contract or JU'ALA and receive the rent for the second contract and the payment for JU'ALA and it is very possible that the owner of the work can demand the beneficiary of the work to pay, in such case, the owner of the work has four choices (a) (b) (c) and one more. Furthermore, if the owner of work chooses to revoke the contract in all of these cases, and goes with the specified pay or rent and the worker has already done some of the work he is entitled for the fair market value payment for his work. This is when the subject of the contract happens to be the benefits but if the contract is made for a specified form of work, the worker is not supposed to do such work for himself or a third party for pay or without it because of a second contract or JU'ALA if he works for himself the owner of work has one of the two first choice. If he works as a volunteer for a third party the owner of work has one of the three choices, if he works because of a second contract or JU'ALA the owner of work has one of four choices. In this case and in the case before it, the worker can work for himself or a third party because of a second contract or JU'ALA a work different from the contracted work at first, provided, the second contract does not interfere with the first contract. If one hires himself in a certain day to fast on behalf of "A" it is lawful for him to do some sewing work for himself or others because of a contract or JU'ALA he can have the pay or receive payment for JU'ALA. But if work interrupts the first contract like when the contracted work is sewing and the worker starts writing, in this case the owner of work has the choice to revoke the contract or demand for the cost of the work which is supposed to be done. In (b) where the subject of the contract is a certain amount of work owed by the worker and is indebted for it in this case too sometimes the contract requires the worker himself to work with one choice only and sometimes the contract allows alternatives also. In the first case the worker can undertake a work that does not interfere with the requirements of the first contract, but it is not lawful for him to do any work that interferes with the requirements of the first contract, regardless, the work is of the same nature or different.
If the worker does a work that interferes with the requirement of the contract the owner of work has the choice to revoke the contract and demand for the cost of the work not done. If the worker hires himself for a work which interrupts the requirements of the first contract the validity of the second contract depends on the approval of the owner of the work of the first contract in the form of his waiving his rights, if he does not approve the second contract it is void and the worker deserves payment according to fair market value from the owner of work. The owner of work according to first contract has the choice, as mentioned, to revoke the contract and demand for the cost of the work he has lost.
If the owner of work according to the first contract approves the second contract, the worker deserves the specified payment from both the owners of works according to the first and second contracts, and he would not be free of his responsibility of the work according to the first contract. The same CR applies if the contract allows alternatives for the work to be done, in any case, the worker has to complete the work and approval of the second contract does not relieve him of this responsibility, such approval removes the condition requiring to personally work. The worker must work for owner of work according to first contract, but not necessarily personally and work for the owner of work of second contract personally. However, in case (b), the case of alternatives is not free from objection.