YeshivaThe torah world Gateway
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Case: Defendant #1 (=def1) built a house next to a lot owned by defendant #2 (=def2). His sewer pipe went partially under def2’s property. In 1998, def1 and def2 signed an agreement whereby they would exchange property so that def1 would get the land over the pipe, but the agreement was never taken to the land authority for implementation. The plaintiff (=pl) bought def2’s plot and built a house on it – not along the lines of the property exchange. As pl’s house was being built, in 2004, the parties made a basic agreement by which pl would do landscaping as he likes on top of most of the pipe. Pl claims that the presence of the pipe raised the cost of his development. Additionally, the sewer is faulty and has more than once gotten clogged and leaked, giving off horrible smells; this causes his property to devalue. Pl demands the removal of the pipe and/or compensation for various elements of more than 200,000 shekels. Def1 claims that the land exchange was binding and that def2 asked as a favor not to report it right away to the authorities and that pl was told about the situation before buying the lot. Def2 says that he changed his mind on the land transfer the day after signing that agreement and that it is probably not possible to carry it out legally. He told pl about the problem and demands that pl finish payment for the house and adjudicate with def1. Pl responds that since the contract states that the property is free of any other parties, def2 is in breach of contract and does not yet deserve the final payment.
P'ninat Mishpat (832)
Various Rabbis
511 - Fallout from Underground Encroachment – part II
512 - Fallout from Underground Encroachment – part III
513 - Mold Damage to a Rented Apartment
Load More
Since it is clear that there was agreement to keep the pipe as is and there is doubt about the level of compensation, the burden of proof is on pl. However, as a general rule (see Rama, Choshen Mishpat 246:17) and based on what we know of the negotiations between the sides in 2004, it was certainly not meant to be for free.
Pl’s claim that def1 gave a virtual carte blanche for any expenses, which they claim is some 200,000 shekels, is implausible. Pl admits that def1 could have moved the pipe in 2004 for 60,000 shekels (there are indications that it was possible for 20,000 shekels). It was not proved that the ground height at which pl chose to build his house was due to the existence of the pipe. In fact, during 2005-6 there was no indication that pl planned to make a major claim against def1; apparently acrimony between the sides that arose in 2007 is responsible for the present large claim.
The main basis of the compensation we award pl is the price of the land that def1 is using according to the price at the time of agreement. We added modest appraisals of actual related expenses. The amount is 20,000 shekels.
There is no excuse for pl to withhold final payment to def2. Any negotiations with def1 should have been dealt with at the time of the sale, and def2 did his part by being up-front on the matter.
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Smoking Rights in a Rental? – part III
based on ruling 85076 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: A Contractor’s Leaving the Job in the Middle – part III
based on ruling 84013 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Rabbis in Midrash
Lessons
fast navigation
Shoftim TESHUVA IN COURT OF LAW?
Parshat Shoftim-Chodesh Elul
Why does parshat Shoftim always come out during Elul? This innovative and central explanation is an eye-opener regarding many aspects of Judaism.
The Month of Elul TESHUVA IS THE ANSWER
The month of Elul serves as a vital time for self-reflection and personal accountability to prepare for true repentance.
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Realtor’s Fee on Large Commercial Building – part I
(based on ruling 85031 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
(based on ruling 85031 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
P'ninat Mishpat Complaints about Contractor’s Work – part II
(based on ruling 83037.1 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
(based on ruling 83037.1 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
Chemdat Yamim Moreshet Shaul: The Goal of an Agricultural Yeshiva – part I
Based on Siach Shaul, Pirkei Machshava V’Hadracha p. 263 (address at the laying of the cornerstone of the Yeshiva Chakla’it in Kfar Haroeh)
Based on Siach Shaul, Pirkei Machshava V’Hadracha p. 263 (address at the laying of the cornerstone of the Yeshiva Chakla’it in Kfar Haroeh)
Chemdat Yamim The Goal of an Agricultural Yeshiva – part II
Based on Siach Shaul, Pirkei Machshava V’Hadracha p. 263 (address at the cornerstone laying for the Yeshiva Chakla’it in Kfar Haroeh – 1938)
Based on Siach Shaul, Pirkei Machshava V’Hadracha p. 263 (address at the cornerstone laying for the Yeshiva Chakla’it in Kfar Haroeh – 1938)
Re'e NEVER EXTREME EXCEPT ISRAEL
Parshat Re'eh
Judaism is against extremism, so how can we understand the seemingly extreme statements found in our sages in favor of living in the Land of Israel and against living in Chutz laAretz? The article deals with the seeming contradiction between the strength of Free-Will and the strength of being influenced by our surroundings.
Ekev DANCE FOR ISRAEL- FOR YOUR BENEFIT
Parshat Eikev
Description: The 7 Haftarot we read after Tisha B'Av ("Shiva D'Nichemta") surely get us excited that they're coming TRUE, and awaken us to yearn, dance & join the return to Zion! The short article also deals with the problems and solutions facing the American Jewish community as discussed at a recent panel, as well as the question why Jews come from America to Israel to help when we face problems, but Israelis don't come to aid Jews in America when they face anti-Semitism.
