Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: Maharash Engel (Shut III:15) proves that an agent is entitled to normal payment unless he explicitly said he is waiving those rights. This is in line with the normal rule (Rama, Choshen Mishpat 264:4) that we do not assume that people provide services which have fees for free.
The Zechor L’Avraham (III, CM, "Sachar") was unsure if one did a service and then did not promptly ask for payment whether we assume that he was mochel. The Zechor L’Avraham suggested that the plaintiff would have to accept a cherem to confirm that he did it with the intention to receive payment. However, that seems to be the case only because of a factor that the Zechor L’Avraham mentioned – most people in his place would do the service for free. In a place where the minhag is to pay, it is no worse than one who does work on his friend’s field without the latter’s knowledge, where he gets paid according to the value he provided (Bava Metzia 101a). If the owner implied that that he would be happy that the work be done, he receives a high level of pay. The Gra (CM 185:13) says that this concept is the basis for an agent’s rights to a fee despite not discussing the details. In our case, def gave pl keys to the premises and put out an advertisement stating that those interested in buying should call pl, and she was active in working on the matter.
In a case of a definite obligation, the Zechor L’Avraham will agree that the lack of an immediate claim does not create an assumption of mechilla. It is true that there is precedent that not making a claim for a long time indicates mechilla (Ketubot 104a, regarding a woman who did not ask for her ketuba for 25 years, while being supported). However, there are ample sources that this is the exception to the rule, and that this applies only when it is clear that there was mechilla (see Maharit II:49). Otherwise, we apply the normal rule that matters that remain in the heart of a person are not binding – in other words, even if she would have intended not to have claim the money, pl still would not have lost her rights.
Therefore, def must pay pl the entire amount of the claim.
P'ninat Mishpat (802)
Various Rabbis
281 - Falling Asleep Behind the Steering Wheel
282 - Realtor With a Delayed Demand of a Fee
283 - Authority to Rule Based on Convicton
Load More
P'ninat Mishpat: Smoking Rights in a Rental? – part I
based on ruling 85076 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Tishrei 5786
P'ninat Mishpat: Problematic Lights?
based on appeal of ruling 84085 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Cheshvan 5786
P'ninat Mishpat: Multiple Agreements and Parties – part II
based on ruling 80082 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Kislev 5786
