Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Case: The plaintiff (=pl) helps clients receive mortgages. The defendant (=def), owner of a building company which cooperated with pl, used his services personally, and they agreed on a payment of 1% of the loan def sought (2.5 million shekels) if successful. According to pl, when the task proved to be particularly difficult, def agreed that he would pay an additional 25,000 shekel if successful, which they were. Def gave pl two checks of 25,000 shekels. One was used, and the other did not clear the bank because of a mistake in its date. Def denied agreeing to a second payment and said the second check was written on behalf of a client for a mortgage that did not materialize.
Ruling: The second check, including its sum, certainly fits well with pl’s claim. Def’s explanation of that check is illogical and totally counterintuitive. Pl also presented videos of conversations with def which corroborate his claim, including showing discussions about rewriting the second check due to its mistake. The replacement check was written with an irregular initialing of yet another mistake, and def claims it was a forgery. However, there are several indications that this was a contrived claim. In their summary of claims, def did not even bother to respond to the evidence in the videotapes against him.
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Various Rabbis
405 - Withheld Payment During Financial Crisis
406 - Was There an Agreement to Increased Pay?
407 - Independent-Minded Architect – part I
Load More
Def claims that even if he originally owed the extra money, he has an offsetting claim since he let pl keep a sign publicizing its business on def’s property. Def contradicted himself on whether he had explicitly demanded compensation for it at the time of the display, and a witness that def brought, when claiming that he made demands on def’s behalf against pl, implied that no claims were raised at the time in regard to the signs. Therefore, beit din rejects the offsetting claim.
The general policy of halacha and thus of our beit din is that litigants each pay their own legal expenses and share the beit din fee. The exception is when beit din has evidence that one side acted in bad faith, e.g., when they must have been clearly aware they were wrong. Ours is a classic case of that phenomenon. Therefore, def must pay 15,000 shekels for the expenses he caused pl in the adjudication, including lawyer’s fees, court fees in previous rounds of adjudication before coming to our beit din, time pl had to take off from work for adjudication, and the beit din fee.
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: To Whom Do the Payments Go? – part I
based on ruling 81075 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: A Contractor’s Leaving the Job in the Middle – part II
based on ruling 84013 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Complaints about Contractor’s Work – part II
(based on ruling 83037.1 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
Rabbis in Midrash
Lessons
fast navigation
Various Events FOR WHOM NOT TO VOTE
Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook stressed that Israeli politics is G-dly, so I have no problem answering this common question on a Torani blog. Also, Free-Will is a G-d-given right and obligation, to "destine one's fate" (R. Soloveichik, Kol Dodi Dofek, 67), so I obviously don't tell others how to vote. But once not a few (especially young) have already asked, a couple of personal words from experience and thoughts from chazal & Rav Kook which may be of help to others, mainly for whom NOT to vote.
P'ninat Mishpat Fallout from Failure to Install Elevator – part II
based on ruling 85007 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
