- Sections
- P'ninat Mishpat
based on ruling 81054 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Did the Advisor Do Enough?
Case: The plaintiffs (=pl) hired the defendant (=def), a mortgage advisor, to help them obtain a mortgage with the best conditions. Def worked with pl to get a mortgage proposal with Bank 1, but the offer was rescinded when pl did not submit an appraiser’s valuation of the apartment on time. Def started pl on the process with Bank 2, requiring a lot of work on pl’s part. When it was time to sign, the wife gave birth and by the time they were able to sign, Corona broke out, Bank 2 raised the interest rates, and pl decided not to sign. When pl asked def for another offer, def refused unless pl would pay an additional fee. They stopped working together. Pl, who had already paid, wants to receive their money back since def did not see the process through to the goal and because def made pl do all of the legwork with Bank 2. Def argues that his job was completed when he produced Bank 1’s mortgage proposal, and anything he did beyond that was voluntary.
Ruling: Looking at the contract, there is significant ambiguity in regard to some of the disputes. Par. 3.4 states that if the client stops the process after there is a mortgage proposal, he must pay in full. This identifies the mortgage proposal as a central element, although it does not address our exact case. In general, when there is doubt about what is included in a contract, the one who wants to receive money based on the contract is not able to do so (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 42). However, this is based on the rule of hamotzi mechavero alav hareaya (proof is needed to extract payment), so that in a case like this where the beneficiary of the contract already received payment, he does not have to return it out of doubt (Rama, CM 42:8).
Regarding whether def is required to go to the bank instead of the client, doing so is written as something that def may do but it is not written as a specific obligation. This can imply that the matter is somewhat at def’s discretion.
If we consider both issues together, we see that def did the legwork with Bank 1, which fits with his understanding that before having done his job, he should be involved in an extensive manner. After the mortgage proposal was received, but it became unusable, def just helped beyond the letter of the law to enable pl to get a mortgage in any case. Although pl blamed def for not making them aware that there was a deadline for presenting the appraisal, the proposal has a date on it states for how long it is binding, and def presented two WhatsApp messages in which he urged pl to finish the paperwork before it was too late.
Therefore, it appears very likely that def did as much as was required of him, and pl is not entitled to get a refund.
Ruling: Looking at the contract, there is significant ambiguity in regard to some of the disputes. Par. 3.4 states that if the client stops the process after there is a mortgage proposal, he must pay in full. This identifies the mortgage proposal as a central element, although it does not address our exact case. In general, when there is doubt about what is included in a contract, the one who wants to receive money based on the contract is not able to do so (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 42). However, this is based on the rule of hamotzi mechavero alav hareaya (proof is needed to extract payment), so that in a case like this where the beneficiary of the contract already received payment, he does not have to return it out of doubt (Rama, CM 42:8).
Regarding whether def is required to go to the bank instead of the client, doing so is written as something that def may do but it is not written as a specific obligation. This can imply that the matter is somewhat at def’s discretion.
If we consider both issues together, we see that def did the legwork with Bank 1, which fits with his understanding that before having done his job, he should be involved in an extensive manner. After the mortgage proposal was received, but it became unusable, def just helped beyond the letter of the law to enable pl to get a mortgage in any case. Although pl blamed def for not making them aware that there was a deadline for presenting the appraisal, the proposal has a date on it states for how long it is binding, and def presented two WhatsApp messages in which he urged pl to finish the paperwork before it was too late.
Therefore, it appears very likely that def did as much as was required of him, and pl is not entitled to get a refund.

P'ninat Mishpat (682)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
663 - Reservation of an I-pad Game – part II
664 - Did the Advisor Do Enough?
665 - Judging Someone who Refuses to Appear before Court
Load More

Responsibility of a Guardian
Various Rabbis | Adar I 16 5776

Who’s Responsible for the Leak?
Based on ruling 80133 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Tevet 5783

Payment Plans
Based on ruling 78063 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Elul 2 5782

Did the Realtor Help? - part II
Based on ruling 82097 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | 4 Kislev 5783

Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit

Payment for Not Clearing Warehouse On Time – part II
based on ruling 75076 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Av 20 5780

Limits of Interest Rate for Loan with Heter Iska – part II
based on ruling 80033 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Sivan 15 5782

The Need to Take Steps to Keep the Rabbi
Igrot Hare’aya Letter #22
Iyar 21 5781

Halachic Shmita Guide from Eretz Hemdah
Elul 8 5781
The Minor Fasts and Their Laws
Rabbi Eliezer Melamed | tamoz 5761

Why Do Children Start With Vayikra?
Rabbi Shaul Yisraeli zt"l | 5771

Can we offer Korban Pesach today?
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff | Shvat 4 5777

Mixing Celebration of Last Year and Dealing with Anxiety about Next Year
Rabbi Ari Shvat | Tishrei 20 5775

How Does a Heter Iska Work?
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff | Adar 5783

What’s new, Israel?!
Rabbi Stewart Weiss | Adar 5783
What Is the Worth of Shiny Gold?
Rabbi Zalman Baruch Melamed | Adar 24 5783
