Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: [After discussing complaints about the rented location, we now discuss the matter of merchandise supplied.]
Regarding the factual question of how many lulavim pl received and must pay for, we accept pl’s claims for the following reasons. First, they are defendants in this matter who are saying definitively that they did not become obligated in more of the payment than admitted. In contrast, def2 seek to receive payment and also do not sound as confident that they gave all but 40. We also expect pl to remember better, as they were dealing only with their small orders, as opposed to def2 who sold 40,000 sets to many dozens of retailers. Whether or not it was customary or wise to do so, pl have a right to accept only the merchandise they ordered, and so they are exempt from paying the 16 NIS each that the 80 lulavim cost, for a savings of 1,280 NIS.
Based on the prices discussed in beit din, pl is claiming that the lack of preserved lulavim caused 20 sets to not be sold (11% of full sales). This is not an exaggerated claim, but the burden of proof is still on pl that the shortage of preserved lulavim caused them to sell significantly less to the degree of certainty to obligate for damage in the form of preventing gain. It is also not clear that pl did not have alternatives to have prevented the damage, such as accepting the alternatives or buying the extra lulavim from a different supplier (pl claimed that def2 repeatedly promised they would provide what was ordered). Therefore, according to strict Halacha, we cannot obligate def2 in damages. On the other hand, def2 themselves said that when an order is not delivered as promised, the buyers and sellers work out a compromise. It is also possible to give a reduction to pl on the other elements of the sets that they bought and did not use. The dayanim disagreed whether and how to calculate a small compromise on this point [the details of which are too technical for this forum.]
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
654 - Disappointment with Arba Minim Sales Provisions – part II
655 - Disappointment with Arba Minim Sales Provisions – part III
656 - Aftermath of a Complex Partnership – part I
Load More
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
Igrot Hare’aya Connecting Disciplines in Torah Study
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook #103 – part II
Igrot Hare’aya Departure of an Uncle to Eretz Yisrael
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook: Vol. I, #1 , p. 1-2 – part II
Igrot Hare’aya Connecting Disciplines in Torah Study
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook 103 – part III
P'ninat Mishpat 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: A Contractor’s Leaving the Job in the Middle – part III
based on ruling 84013 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Undoing a Problematic Partnership – part I
based on ruling 84061 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Did Any Furniture Go to the Buyer? – part I
based on ruling 84093 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
