Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: Although def did not sign the contract, def composed it, and thus both sides relied on it regarding mutual obligations. Regarding workers, whatever oral agreements and understandings were in place at the time of the beginning of the work are binding (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 333:1).
Both sides explained the contract’s provision of six months as dealing with a scenario of "losing touch." One cannot deduce from this that all other delays in progress are acceptable. While beit din accepts def’s claim that there is not an end point of the project because one never knows which delays will be forced on the architect by the owner or the authorities, there are still minimum standards for consistent work.
[Beit din analyzed in detail the schedule of meetings and the sketches that def sent to pl.] It appears that months went by with def making very little progress. Considering that there was not substantive denial of pl’s claim that he several times asked for meetings and was rebuffed, there are clear grounds for grievance. The new architect claimed that the work done by his predecessor was not viable, thereby returning the project back to close to the beginning. The fact that another two months went by until a meeting was set between def and pl and that it was then cancelled without notice, gave pl due cause to feel he was not being taken seriously and could not depend on timely progress. Therefore, def’s counterclaim to hold pl to the contract is rejected.
Although def did put in time and produce some results, pl deserves his first payment back. Regarding work stopped in the middle, whether the worker backed out, or the employer fired him with sufficient justification, the worker gets paid the amount of money he saved the employer by his work (ibid. 4). In this case, since pl’s new architect started from the beginning, which they had little choice about, considering that def enjoys copyright privileges to their plans and did not allow their use, def did not benefit from them, and all that was paid must be returned.
[We will omit the analysis, but] def must pay pl an additional 500 shekels for the damages that their negligence, and especially their not coming to the last meeting, caused.
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
563 - Paying Community Taxes – part III
564 - Too Slow to Meet a Non-Deadline
565 - Receiving Pay for Hours Not Taught
Load More
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
Igrot Hare’aya Connecting Disciplines in Torah Study
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook #103 – part II
P'ninat Mishpat Limits of Interest Rate for Loan with Heter Iska – part I
based on ruling 80033 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat Limits of Interest Rate for Loan with Heter Iska – part II
based on ruling 80033 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
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: Dividing Parents’ Resources when Mother Still Alive
based on ruling 82017 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Unsuccessful Transfer of Yeshiva – part V
based on appeal ruling 82138 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
