- Sections
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: We saw last time that pl’s claim that she originally stated the items were on loan is not convincing enough to extract money.
Def claims that her admission letter was written under duress. However, the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 81:17) rules that even those claims that are effective against an imperfect admission do not work against an admission in writing. On the other hand, the admission’s extent is limited to that which is written in the letter.
A "gift" that returns at a certain point can take different forms: 1) she’eila (a loan); 2) a gift for a certain time (ibid. 241:6). In this case, neither side proved which of the constructs was used. One difference between them is whether the recipient is responsible to guard the items and pay if he was not successful (according to #2, the recipient is exempt). Even a borrower (#1) is exempt from damages that occurred as a result of normal use (ibid. 340:1). Therefore, either way, def will be exempt from much of the damage. Those items that normally get fully used in a few years would not need to be accounted for at all. If viewed as a borrower, def would be responsible for some of the damages that were not due to natural wear and tear. Def would also be obligated to swear that there was no negligence that would obligate her to pay for damages.
Since being a borrower obligates the recipient, def would have had to realize that she was becoming a borrower to be obligated in that way. We do not have proof that this occurred. She would not have to be aware of becoming the recipient of a gift for a certain time, as there are no special obligations, just a need to return that which is no longer hers. Therefore, while def must return the materials, she would not be required to pay.
Next time we will discuss how to return the materials.

P'ninat Mishpat (762)
Various Rabbis
581 - Return of “Borrowed” Pre-School Items 1
582 - Return of “Borrowed” Pre-School Items – II
583 - Return of “Borrowed” Pre-School Items – III
Load More

The Return of Equipment that Was Given or Lent
part II
Various Rabbis | 5773

A Student Who Broke a Camera
Various Rabbis | Tevet 5768

P'ninat Mishpat: Counter Claims – part II (Child Care, Foundations)
based on ruling 81059 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Tevet 5784

An Abrupt End to a Rental
Various Rabbis | Tevet 5768

Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit

Departure of an Uncle to Eretz Yisrael
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook: Vol. I, #1 , p. 1-2 – part II
Tevet 21 5781

Profits from Formerly Joint Swimming Pool – part
(based on ruling 81110 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
19 Sivan 5784

Limiting Exorbitant Lawyer’s Fees – part I
(Based on ruling 81120 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
Tishrei 29 5783

A Commercial Rental for a Closed Business – part II
based on ruling 80047 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Shvat 1 5782

Parashat “Shema” and Parashat “Vehaya Im Shamoa”
Parashat Ekev
Rabbi S. Yossef Weitzen | Av 5761

What Happens When Purim Falls on Shabbos?
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff | Adar 13 5781
How Early May One Begin to Pray?
Chapter eleven-part two
Rabbi Eliezer Melamed | 5775

Mitzvot Which Seem “Outdated” in General or Unfair to Women
Rabbi Ari Shvat | Adar 13 5781
