- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
87
Case: The plaintiffs (=pl) bought from the defendant (def), for 910,000 shekels, an apartment in an old building that does not have a building permit or a Tofes 4 (certificate of fitness for occupancy). It is also not connected directly to a meter of the electric and water companies (they pay through a neighbor). After pl complained to the municipality, the latter issued an order to destroy the building (it may never be acted upon). Def did not inform pl of these deficiencies but argues that plcould have easily found out themselves. Pl demand that def take action to fully legalize the apartment/building, the feasibility of which is under dispute between the sides. Alternatively, pl demand 400,000 shekels compensation. Def claims that the building’s legal status does not affect the apartments’ value. He offered pl to try to sell the apartment, and if they cannot get a price that is fit for normal apartments, def will buy it from them at full price. Def made several other offers involving buying back the apartment with certain conditions, but pl want to stay in the apartment.
Ruling: We saw last time that def did not obligate himself as part of the sale to take unusual steps to turn the sale into a more fair one.

P'ninat Mishpat (781)
Various Rabbis
409 - Fixing Status of a Non-Standard Apartment – part I
410 - Fixing Status of a Non-Standard Apartment – part II
411 - Fixing Status of a Non-Standard Apartment – part III
Load More
Yet, there are a few reasons to consider that pl waived their right tobitul mekach. One is that their contract states that they checked the status of the apartment and found that it met their needs. That clause could have impact by meaning that they admit that the true situation did not bother them or that they waived complaints in case there would be any. Pl responded that at the time, they were new olim and his lawyer, who was not from Yerushalayim, checked only the Tabu and did not think to check for a building permit. In this case, pl’s actions show that they were not satisfied with the situation, in which case any admission was clearly based on misinformation, which is invalid (Shulchan Aruch, CM 81:20).
Regarding waiving rights, one can only waive what he is aware of (ibid. 232:7). However, even after finding out the various issues, plcontinued to live in the apartment. This usually precludes bitul mekach(ibid. 1), although some argue in cases where it would have been hard for the buyer to void the sale immediately (see Pitchei Teshuva ad loc.). However, def did not complain for many months and despite beit din’s request to raise all possible demands, did not mention the possibility ofbitul mekach. Therefore, pl can no longer request bitul mekach.

P'ninat Mishpat: End of Tenure of Development Company – part I
based on ruling 77097 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Tammuz 5785

P'ninat Mishpat: Unsuccessful Transfer of Yeshiva – part I
based on ruling 82138 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Adar 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: Unpaid Fees of a No-Show to Beit Din
based on ruling 84052 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Shevat 5784
Israel's International Relations in the Bible
Rabbi Abraham Wasserman | 7 Adar 5784
Dreams & Reality
Rabbi Berel Wein | Kislev 5768
Israel's International Relations in the Bible
Rabbi Abraham Wasserman | 7 Adar 5784

What Makes God Laugh
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks | Tammuz 5783
Daf Yomi Avodah Zarah Daf 13
R' Eli Stefansky | 5 Tammuz 5785
Daf Yomi Avodah Zarah Daf 15
R' Eli Stefansky | 7 Tammuz 5785
