Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: We saw last time that in a standard case of pandemic-caused cancellation, the customer gets his down payment back.
Does def’s claimed offer of an alternative make a difference? Def admitted to not having offered to do the event outside on time, which was then a possibility. He implied that he did not look for alternatives because pl asked repeatedly for a refund. In any case, pl did not have to accept a different type of event than that which was agreed to, including by changing the date (pl claims doing it on the exact birthday was important to them).
The contract states that the "down payment will not be returned in any case, including mourning." Generally explicit agreements change the regular rules, but here it is not so for a few reasons, all connected to the idea of following the sides’ intentions. First, if we take the language of the contract literally, then even if def decided not to do the bar mitzva, he would not have to return the down payment, which is inconceivable. Rather, it refers to pl backing out, no matter their reason, and this indeed is what all the examples given in the subsequent lines relate to, including death of a relative. This should not extend to cancellations due to an external factor affecting both sides. Also, when conditions are made, they do not apply to extraordinarily rare cases (see Shulchan Aruch, Even Haezer 144:1 and Taz ad loc.) That is because those making the agreement did not have such cases in mind. Certainly, a virus that has caused Israel to close all halls has not happened in many decades.
Sometimes in cases like this (makkat medina), batei din employ compromise as suggested by the Chatam Sofer. In this case, we have decided not to do so for several reasons, including: 1) neither side wants compromise; 2) the Chatam Sofer discussed a case of an ongoing relationship, whereas here def never ended up providing anything for pl; 3) we think def could have done more to accommodate pl. Therefore, def must return the whole deposit.
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
598 - Unartistic Material for Artistic Work – part II
599 - Refund for Bar Mitzva Cancelled Due to Covid – part I
600 - Refund for Bar Mitzva Cancelled Due to Covid – part II
Load More
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
P'ninat Mishpat Profits from Formerly Joint Swimming Pool – part
(based on ruling 81110 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
Igrot Hare’aya Connecting Disciplines in Torah Study
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook #103 – part II
Igrot Hare’aya Trying to Arrange Purchase of Land in Eretz Yisrael – part II
#229 Date and Place: 13 Tishrei 5670 (1909), Yafo
P'ninat Mishpat Complaints about Contractor’s Work – part II
(based on ruling 83037.1 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Problematic Lights?
based on appeal of ruling 84085 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: A Contractor’s Leaving the Job in the Middle – part III
based on ruling 84013 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
