- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
202
Ruling: [Last time we saw the Ramah’s opinion, that when partners invest unequally and need to share losses, money is not extracted from the smaller investor’s personal resources.]
The Ramah’s ruling may not apply in several cases. The Shvut Yaakov (III:167) says that if one of the partners was apt to gain from the profits without having to invest money, he is obligated to pay for losses from his own resources. The Shut Pnei Yehoshua (CM 3) adds that if they both invested and then one partner added to the investment, the two are to share the losses from the additional money.
All of the above rules apply only when not contradicted by agreement. In this case, there was an unsigned draft agreement, which is not operative in the classical sense but can serve as an indication of what the sides agreed to orally at the outset of the partnership. We see from the poskim a practical approach to determining whether the partner who invested less must reimburse the one who invested more in case of losses.
The agreement in this case contains counter indications. On one hand, the two are to be equal partners in profits; on the other hand, pl is to be reimbursed from profits, and there is a disputed addition on being reimbursed even if there are not profits. It is beit din’s obligation to consider the case’s subjective background. According to the parties’ descriptions, it is not plausible that def would have obligated himself to pay pl out of pocket. During the course of the investments, when pl was making decisions on how much to invest, it was clear he viewed the investment decisions as his prerogative and thus his responsibility. It is pertinent that while def did not invest serious funds, he invested much "value," as he gave up other job opportunities.
Therefore, def does not have to reimburse pl for his losses. On the other hand, pl did not have to continue investing money beyond the original plan for the project. Def cannot blame him for the fact that the investment did not produce profit.

P'ninat Mishpat (781)
Various Rabbis
255 - Responsibility for a Failed Joint Investment – part I
256 - Responsibility for a Failed Joint Investment – part II
257 - Sharing in Building Expenses When One Did Not Directly Benefit – part I
Load More

P'ninat Mishpat: Proof Needed to Remove a Squatter – part III
based on ruling 81116 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Cheshvan 5784

P'ninat Mishpat: Spillover of Courtyard Dispute
based on ruling 81059 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Tevet 5784

P'ninat Mishpat: Amounts and Conditions of Payment to an Architect – part II
based on ruling 83061 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Sivan 5785

P'ninat Mishpat:Amounts and Conditions of Payment to an Architect – part I
based on ruling 83061 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Iyar 5784
Israel's International Relations in the Bible
Rabbi Abraham Wasserman | 7 Adar 5784

Shaving and Haircuts during the Three Weeks
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff | 5768

It’s About Time - The Bracha of Shehechiyanu
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff | 5770
Customs of the Three Weeks
Rabbi Eliezer Melamed | Sivan 5768
Daf Yomi Avodah Zarah Daf 13
R' Eli Stefansky | 5 Tammuz 5785

Asking Restraint from Insulted New Yishuv – #334
Date and Place: Tammuz 5670 (1910)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Tammuz 5785
