- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
19
Ruling: Last time, we saw that pl was wrong in leaving the work and lost his right to finish the job.
Pl claims that even if he was wrong for leaving the job, his fee should be reduced only according to the prorated cost of the work needed to be finished. The contract states that if pl fails to keep to the time schedule or does not fix flaws within ten days, def can replace him, after warning. This grants def the right to have the same work done, even at a higher fee (def must present proof of payment). The warning does not need to be about an imminent hiring of someone else, but just that he make demands about what is expected of pl, which it is documented that he did.
The written specification of the aluminum work requires "Belgian style," which pl did not provide, and therefore def wants them replaced. The problem was detected before installation, and the sides decided to install what was ordered and compensate monetarily as needed. Now, def claims that the aluminum is of unreasonably low quality. Pl denies ever receiving the specification sheet for the aluminum and that they therefore ordered "standard" aluminum. Pl also claims that eng agreed to the aluminum, which eng denies.
Beit din concludes that it is unreasonable for pl to have received exact specifications for everything except the aluminum and to nevertheless set a price for it, especially because we are unaware of any "standard" product. There are also indications that pl received the information and acknowledged he made a mistake in the order. The rule is that when a litigant quotes a third party and the third party denies what was said in his name, the litigant is not believed. Since both sides gave special trust to eng, pl’s claims in this matter are rejected. However, beit din’s expert finds that the aluminum installed is of reasonable quality and since def allowed it to be installed, the aluminum need not be replaced. Pl will have to return a significant amount of money for the downgrade.

P'ninat Mishpat (781)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
619 - Pay for Contractor who Left the Job under Protest – part I
620 - Pay for Contractor who Left the Job under Protest – part II
621 - Valid Excuses to Not Pay Rent?
Load More

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

P'ninat Mishpat: Upper Property’s Responsibility for Flooding
based on ruling 82008 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Adar 5784

P'ninat Mishpat: Rental of an Apartment that Was Not Quite Ready – part II
based on ruling 82031 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Iyar 5784

P'ninat Mishpat: End of Tenure of Development Company – part I
based on ruling 77097 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Tammuz 5785

Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit

Connecting Disciplines in Torah Study
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook #103 – part II
Sivan 8 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

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

Payments after a Gradual End of Employment
(Based on ruling 82024 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Nissan 5783
The Minor Fasts and Their Laws
Rabbi Eliezer Melamed | tamoz 5761

The Importance of Fulfilling Vows and Keeping One's Word
Rabbi Shmuel Holshtein | 29 Sivan 5784

The Haftarah for Pinchas
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff | Tamuz 17 5779

When May I Ask a Gentile For Help on Shabbos?
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff | 5769
Daf Yomi Avodah Zarah Daf 9
R' Eli Stefansky | 1 Tammuz 5785

Asking Restraint from Insulted New Yishuv – #334
Date and Place: Tammuz 5670 (1910)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Tammuz 5785
