Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
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 (801)
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
P'ninat Mishpat: Did Any Furniture Go to the Buyer? – part I
based on ruling 84093 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Kislev 5786
P'ninat Mishpat: Unpaid Fees of a No-Show to Beit Din
based on ruling 84052 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Shevat 5784
P'ninat Mishpat: Amounts and Conditions of Payment to an Architect – part III
based on ruling 83061 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Sivan 5785
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
Who Breached the Contract? – part IV
Based on ruling 81087 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Iyar 20 5783
Connecting Disciplines in Torah Study
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook 103 – part III
Sivan 15 5782
Improving Education in Yafo
Igrot Hare’aya Letter #21
Iyar 21 5781
