- Sections
- P'ninat Mishpat
25
Ruling: We saw last time that def should be fully refunded for whatever was unusable because they were seriously blemished and it was hard to notice it initially. We will now discuss the countersuit.
We are happy that def lowered the countersuit, as the claim for wasted expenses is covered by the claim for lost revenues (in order to have gotten paid by bk, he had to undergo those expenses).
One deserves compensation from another who caused him to lose revenues only if the revenues were clearly lost because of him (see Eretz Hemdah-Gazit ruling 69020). In this case, despite the problem with the brass forms, def basically admitted that had he noticed the problem before the gabbai and decorator did or had he not quarreled with them, he would have been able to have the blemished parts replaced and gotten paid. His reputation also would not have been impacted. Therefore, he is not entitled to the full claim of losses.
The Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 232:21) rules that if one sells a flawed object that needs to be returned, the seller must pay for the buyer’s expenses only if the seller was aware of the flaw. In contrast, if one gave bad financial advice to his counterpart, he must pay even if his mistake was accidental (ibid. 306:6). The Ramah distinguishes between the cases in that someone who sells has no choice but to sell, and therefore he is exempt from paying for indirect damage, whereas one who does not know how to give advice should not be giving it. Our case falls in the middle and depends how one reads the Ramah. It seems though that the important thing is that def paid for the work and not for the advice to rely on the work, and indeed def came often to inspect. Therefore, pl does not have to pay for the fact that def relied upon their work. There is also strong enough grounds for def to have noticed imperfections that he should have inspected better before relying on it, and therefore he cannot extract further money from pl.

P'ninat Mishpat (777)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
633 - Operating a Preschool in a Private Building – part I
634 - Unartistic Material for Artistic Work – part II
635 - Unartistic Material for Artistic Work – part II
Load More

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: How Much Was Agreed to Pay for Renovations?
based on ruling 84054 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Kislev 5784

P'ninat Mishpat: Unsuccessful Transfer of Yeshiva – part II
based on ruling 82138 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Adar 5784

P'ninat Mishpat: Overpaying Rent by One of the Roommates – part I
based on ruling 84001 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Kislev 5784

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

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

Halachic Shmita Guide from Eretz Hemdah
Elul 8 5781

Improving Education in Yafo
Igrot Hare’aya Letter #21
Iyar 21 5781

Historical View of Rav Mordechai Yaakov Breish (Chelkat Yaakov)
Various Rabbis | 5775
The Laws of Torah Study
Part 3
Rabbi Eliezer Melamed | 5761
The Sin of the Spies - Today
Rabbi Eliezer Melamed
Letting Emotions Flow
Rabbi Moshe Berliner | 5765
The Menorah and the Flat Tire
Rabbi Moshe Leib Halberstadt | 17 Sivan 5785

Orchot Tzaddikim class 58, "Stay Quiet" part iv
Rabbi Ari Shvat | Sivan 5785
Daf Yomi Shevuot Daf 37
R' Eli Stefansky | 11 Sivan 5785
