- Sections
- P'ninat Mishpat
based on ruling 77007 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
The Mouse Guarding the Cheese? – part I
Case: The defendants (=def), the heads of an institution, hired the plaintiff (=pl), who works in the field of construction, to be in charge of building three halls in and around their building. His responsibilities included helping decide on a contractor, forging agreements with him, serving as the building inspector, and overseeing payments. Pl recommended a contracting company (=comp), said to be owned/operated by the contractor (=cont), whom he praised and reported to have given the best possible offer. Def hired comp, and they began working, receiving several payments for a subtotal of 1,016,000 NIS, but the work they did, which is now on hold, was estimated by an appraiser as being worth 230,000 NIS. Pl is suing for unpaid fees for his services of 126,000 NIS. Def claim that pl withheld the fact that pl actually had owned comp while he was supposed to be overseeing them. While he had said that he used to own comp and sold it to cont, it has only recently been transferred. Therefore, def are countersuing for the excess payment of 786,000 NIS, which to a great extent, went to pl, along with other damages he caused. Pl responded that he sold comp to cont before the work began and that he had not approved the early payment to comp (pl/def’s contract said that def should wait for pl to instruct them to pay), and since cont now certainly owns comp, def should sue cont if they overpaid.
Ruling: Pl is correct that his sale of comp was not fictitious, and at the time of the agreement with def, he intended that cont would receive practical control quickly. However, the sale did not go through as planned, as transfer of shares from pl to cont and control of comp’s bank account were delayed by a year because cont did not pay according to schedule. We do not accept pl’s contention that this control, which included depositing and writing checks, was only a formality. Therefore, the problem of a conflict of interest, when one is, in effect, supervising his own company’s work, is a serious one. Therefore, def’s agreement to pl’s role was based on misrepresentation, and pl does not deserve the balance of his salary that he has demanded, even though there is not proof that he did not visit the building site as much as he was required.
Regarding the choice of comp to do the work, it is clear that pl was significantly involved. However, it was not proved that the choice of comp was not a good one, as their price was lower than another estimate, and def did not prove that it was too high for the work involved. Only the price given for the anti-fire sprinkler system was excessive (400,000 NIS instead of 84,000 NIS offered by a different company). This is reason for pl to not receive his salary for organizing and supervising.
Ruling: Pl is correct that his sale of comp was not fictitious, and at the time of the agreement with def, he intended that cont would receive practical control quickly. However, the sale did not go through as planned, as transfer of shares from pl to cont and control of comp’s bank account were delayed by a year because cont did not pay according to schedule. We do not accept pl’s contention that this control, which included depositing and writing checks, was only a formality. Therefore, the problem of a conflict of interest, when one is, in effect, supervising his own company’s work, is a serious one. Therefore, def’s agreement to pl’s role was based on misrepresentation, and pl does not deserve the balance of his salary that he has demanded, even though there is not proof that he did not visit the building site as much as he was required.
Regarding the choice of comp to do the work, it is clear that pl was significantly involved. However, it was not proved that the choice of comp was not a good one, as their price was lower than another estimate, and def did not prove that it was too high for the work involved. Only the price given for the anti-fire sprinkler system was excessive (400,000 NIS instead of 84,000 NIS offered by a different company). This is reason for pl to not receive his salary for organizing and supervising.

P'ninat Mishpat (703)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
613 - Who Drove Worse?
614 - The Mouse Guarding the Cheese? – part I
615 - The Mouse Guarding the Cheese? – part II
Load More

Disagreement on Length of Rental Commitment – part I
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Elul 3 5783

Rights of a Yishuv on Peripheral Land – part I
(based on ruling 80083 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Av 23 5783

P'ninat Mishpat: Disagreement on Length of Rental Commitment – part II
(based on ruling 83043 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | 13 Elul 5783

Learning Right after Shacharit
Rabbi Daniel Mann | Sivan 5783

Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit

Unartistic Material for Artistic Work – part II
based on ruling 80036 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Adar 17 5781

Light or Darkness
based on Ein Ayah, Shabbat 14:6
Kislev 17 5781

Limits of Interest Rate for Loan with Heter Iska – part I
based on ruling 80033 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Sivan 8 5782

Overlapping Rentals
based on ruling 71007 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Tamuz 28 5780

Moving Fallen Decorations on Sukkot
Rabbi Daniel Mann | Tishrei 8 5777

Laws of the Etrog
How to choose an Etrog
Rabbi Ido Yaakovi

Laws of the Lulav
How to choose a Lulav
Rabbi Ido Yaakovi | Tishrei 5776

Laws of the Etrog
How to choose an Etrog
Rabbi Ido Yaakovi

The God of Creation and the Land of Israel
Rabbi Jonathan Sacks | 13 Tishrei 5784
