- Sections
- P'ninat Mishpat
410
Ruling: [The first installment will deal with def’s claim that he should not be bound by the conditions of the contract that he had not read.]
The Rashba, in a few reponsa, deals with the claim of one who said he did not understand part of an agreement to which he ostensibly obligated himself. In one place (V, 228) he rejects such a claim, pointing out that otherwise one could never be held to even a valid agreement.
In contrast, in a responsum (I, 1156) about a bride who signed a document stating that a certain property was not hers, the Rashba writes: "she makes a strong claim when saying that she did not understand or hear the contents of the document, because we all know that a bride is not heedful to what it says in her ketuba." In another responsum, about a document written in a language that the party did not understand, the Rashba writes that we can assume that he relied on his advisers and obligated himself in whatever is written in the document. In that case, we see that knowing that he does not understand is actually reason to be obligated.
Some say that the Rashba changed his mind. The Knesset Hagedola (CM 147:8) suggests two ways of reconciling the response: 1) One cannot claim ignorance on major clauses, but can deny acceptance of side points. 2) We must decide, based on the person who obligated himself, whether it makes sense that he did not know.
In general, the Shulchan Aruch and Rama (CM 61:13) say that one cannot claim that he was unaware of the document’s contents. However, some claim that in extreme cases, we would say that the one obligating himself did not understand. For example, the Mishneh Halachot (XVII, 98) says that if one signed an arbitration agreement that accepts a ruling even if it is based on an outright mistake, we can assume he did not to agree to such an illogical condition.
In our case, none of the reasons to assume that def did not accept the condition applies. The stipulation in question is at the heart of the matter. A normal renter reads a rental agreement, certainly if he signed it himself. The condition of paying until the end of the rental period is not illogical. Therefore, the stipulation of paying until the end of the rental period even if the renter moves out is valid.
[Next time we will investigate whether the condition is valid under unusual circumstances.]

P'ninat Mishpat (777)
Various Rabbis
225 - Pay for Imperfect Work
226 - Aborted Rental
227 - Unsigned Estimates for a Contractor
Load More

P'ninat Mishpat: Unsuccessful Transfer of Yeshiva – part II
based on ruling 82138 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Adar 5784

P'ninat Mishpat: A Used Car with a Tendency for Engine Problems
based on ruling 84034 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Iyar 5784

P'ninat Mishpat: Hezek Re’iya in Our Times
based on ruling 83126 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Cheshvan 5784

P'ninat Mishpat: Upper Property’s Responsibility for Flooding
based on ruling 82008 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Adar 5784
?How we should dress for Prayer
Chapter five-part two
Rabbi Eliezer Melamed | 5775
Nefillat Apayim and the Prayers of Supplication
Chapter Twenty One-Part One
Rabbi Eliezer Melamed | 5775

Sanctity - Past, Present, and Future
Rabbi Avraham Yitzchak HaLevi Kilav | 5764

Moshe And The Military
Rabbi Stewart Weiss

"Bad Thoughts vs. Bad Deeds"
Ayn Aya Shabbat v, 80
Rabbi Ari Shvat | Sivan 5785
