Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: On the matter of the sale of the product, beit din fundamentally agrees with pl1. The product was received to be sold before the agreement and its profits were earmarked for distribution. Since it is not a matter of being paid for work after the work is over but realizing an anticipated profit, pl1 is deserving. However, def2’s claims that storage fees are to be reduced from the profits is correct because pl1 did not prove that the delay in the sale was done in bad faith.
Regarding the continued profit sharing after the 2014 agreement, it is necessary to analyze pl1’s claims. First it is noteworthy that pl1’s options in def2 were in the case that it was sold or pl1 was fired. Pl1 explained that he was interested in separating from def2 because he was unhappy in the way it was being run, and that a process had started by which some of def2’s clients were being transferred to pl2, a subsidiary owned by pl1, and thereby his profits were to be made in that way. Even if, as pl1 claimed, he would in the meantime continue to receive operating profits from def2, it would make sense only that this would be as a worker and not as a partner in def2, from which he was separating. This is evidenced by the division of profits not being based on the percentage in stock options. Therefore, pl1 would not, after the 2014 agreement, be able to receive half of the value of def2. Even if this understanding were not clear, the burden of proof is on pl1. This is because def1 was the original owner of def2, and he is still listed in the company registry as its sole owner. While pl1 has an explanation as to why he did not want to be listed, he still has the burden of proof that the agreements should be understood in the manner he claims.
P'ninat Mishpat (802)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
675 - Aftermath of a Complex Partnership – part II
676 - Aftermath of a Complex Partnership – part III
677 - Appeal of an Incomplete Ruling
Load More
P'ninat Mishpat: Smoking Rights in a Rental? – part III
based on ruling 85076 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Tishrei 5786
P'ninat Mishpat: A Seller with Questionable Rights to the Property – part I
based on ruling 84062 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Cheshvan 5786
P'ninat Mishpat: Did Any Furniture Go to the Buyer? – part II
based on ruling 84093 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Kislev 5786
P'ninat Mishpat: Smoking Rights in a Rental? – part I
based on ruling 85076 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Tishrei 5786
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
Repercussions of a Sale that Turned Out Not Happening – part III
(based on ruling 83045 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
18 Sivan 5784
Profits from Formerly Joint Swimming Pool – part
(based on ruling 81110 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
19 Sivan 5784
Who Breached the Contract? – part IV
Based on ruling 81087 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Iyar 20 5783
