Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: The contract between pl and def states that pl will reimburse def for damages he sustained, including if def has to pay others due to pl’s negligence. The question is whether pl was negligent regarding the etrogim. First, pl claims that the agreement with oo was not carried out because Mr. S decided to raise the quality of the etrogim he wanted for CP, and this caused the need for a change in quantity. Def claims it was because oo was concerned that too big an order was being made and that CP would not pay oo in full. [We will discuss next time the partiality of the different witnesses on this matter.]
Was it necessary for there to be a contract between pl and oo? Pl said that the AM market is one based on trust between the major players, and there are rarely contracts. One of several indications that this is the case is the fact that Mr. S, upon making a new agreement between CP and oo, did not bother to write a proper contract but to sign on some numbers on a scrap of paper after a week.
Regarding the lack of pl’s presence, the contract does not state that pl needed to be present but could have someone representing him. Since oo was serving on pl’s behalf to provide the etrogim for def, he fulfilled that requirement. Although a representative of def asked pl to come, he was not required to agree, which is even more understandable according to his claim that a family situation arose that required his immediate attention.
P'ninat Mishpat (802)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
617 - The Mouse Guarding the Cheese? – part II
618 - Why Was the Etrog Order Changed? – part
619 - Why Was the Etrog Order Changed? – part II
Load More
P'ninat Mishpat: Multiple Agreements and Parties – part II
based on ruling 80082 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Kislev 5786
P'ninat Mishpat: Did Any Furniture Go to the Buyer? – part II
based on ruling 84093 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Kislev 5786
P'ninat Mishpat: Smoking Rights in a Rental? – part I
based on ruling 85076 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Tishrei 5786
P'ninat Mishpat: Did Any Furniture Go to the Buyer? – part I
based on ruling 84093 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Kislev 5786
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
A Commercial Rental for a Closed Business – part II
based on ruling 80047 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Shvat 1 5782
Semi-solicited Advice to Calm Down Petach Tikva
#227 Date and Place: 8 Tishrei 5669, Yafo
19 Sivan 5784
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
