Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: One of the major rules of monetary law is that one who wants to extract money has to bring proof for their claim. In this case, the language of the contract does not conclusively indicate for how many items def accepted responsibility. There is also no proof that def was responsible for the damage that did occur or that they did not choose a reasonable solution of storage. [It is clear that def had every interest to try to contact pl before moving, and] it is hard to discount their claim that their failure was based on factors beyond their control. Since the amount of actual damage is apparently small and pl received 2,500 shekels of compensation for damages from a third party, we do not find it necessary to give pl more money than that by means of compromise.
On the other hand, we will factor in the lack of proof in the other direction as well. If def did everything the best way they could have, they deserve reimbursement for spending 1,200 shekels to store pl’s items. However, since it is not clear if they did so and how much the extent of their obligation to watch pl’s property was, they will not be able to receive that money back from pl based on doubt.
P'ninat Mishpat (801)
Various Rabbis
559 - Delays of a Contractor – part II
560 - Questionable Responsibility for Another’s Property
561 - “Don’t Let the Bedbugs Bite” – part I
Load More
P'ninat Mishpat: Unsuccessful Transfer of Yeshiva – part II
based on ruling 82138 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Adar 5784
P'ninat Mishpat: Late and Flawed Apartment
based on ruling 82174 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Kislev 5786
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
