- Sections
- P'ninat Mishpat
29
Ruling: [Last time we saw that pl was not negligent in not signing a contract with oo or coming to help def negotiate with him.]
There were conflicting testimonies in beit din regarding the question if oo was willing to go along with the agreement that he and pl had worked out. Mr. S said that because oo thought it was too much merchandise to trust CP to pay for, oo refused to give that which was promised. Mr. P (pl’s brother) said that oo did not trust that pl had ordered wisely, considering it was for the Diaspora, and that maybe had pl been present he could have solved the problem. Therefore, he said, the deal was only made possible by oo’s confidante, Mr. T. Mr. A also said that oo had not prepared merchandise for def, as he does for buyers he takes seriously. Oo testified that while he was surprised, he was willing to do the sale as discussed, but that he thought that CP would want a different arrangement. Actually, the claim that it was a totally new deal is something that def never raised in his letters to beit din; he raised it for the first time in the hearing. There was a contradiction in Mr. S’s testimony, who def brought as a witness, as he later said that he ignored pl’s order and pushed in a new order of his own volition. Perhaps the strongest evidence that pl’s contribution was not forgotten, is that the delivery order that oo prepared said, "for pl or Mr. S in the name of CP," and Mr. S signed that order. Mr. S said that he did not consider that accurate but only signed about the number received. The gemara (Ketubot 24b) relates to the question if one who signs on a document affirms everything written in it or only its critical elements. The Rama (Choshen Mishpat 49:7) rules that we view it in a limited manner; the Shach (ad loc. 7) views it more broadly.
We cannot base ourselves strongly on Mr. P’s testimony, as he is a relative of a party, nor on Mr. S’s testimony, as he contradicted himself.
[Next time, we will discuss the status of oo’s testimony and complete our treatment of the case.]

P'ninat Mishpat (777)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
619 - Why Was the Etrog Order Changed? – part
620 - Why Was the Etrog Order Changed? – part II
621 - Why Was the Etrog Order Changed? – part III
Load More

P'ninat Mishpat: Hezek Re’iya in Our Times
based on ruling 83126 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Cheshvan 5784

Counter Claims – part III (Privacy, Housing Unit, Pipes, Aravot)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Tevet 5784

P'ninat Mishpat: Did the Real Estate Agent Remain Relevant?
based on ruling 84031 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Adar 5784

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

Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit

Trying to Arrange Purchase of Land in Eretz Yisrael
#222 Date and Place: 2 Elul 5669 (1909), Rechovot
18 Sivan 5784

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

Trying to Arrange Purchase of Land in Eretz Yisrael – part II
#229 Date and Place: 13 Tishrei 5670 (1909), Yafo
19 Sivan 5784

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

Early Maariv
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff | Nissan 5783

Lighting the candles on Friday night
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff | 5772

The Mitzvah of Mezuzah for Renters
Rabbi Hershel Schachter | כ' טבת תשס"א
