YeshivaThe torah world Gateway
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: [We have seen that def are to pay for breach of contract, but the question now is whether the amount written in the contract is binding.]
Pl was damaged by breach of the franchise agreement by lost opportunity and unrewarded effort, but damage was only in the tens of thousands, not 150,000 NIS. Since the obligation was in def’s ability to control and the listed payment is exaggerated compared to damages, it is considered an asmachta (an obligation one took because he did not expect to have to pay it), which is generally not binding (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 328:1-2). Is this case one of the exceptions to that rule?
Tosafot (Bava Metzia 66a) gives two explanations why we honor penalty agreements for a broken engagement: 1. It is an accepted societal practice (along the lines of situmta). 2. The matter embarrasses the "victim." #2 indicates that the obligation may not be exaggerated. #1 is based on the idea that whereas asmachta lacks gemirut da’at (full consideration), if something is known to be binding, one who accepts it considered it well. Whether we accept distinction #1 may depend on the machloket cited in the Pitchei Teshuva (CM 201:2) whether situmta works to transfer an object that did not exist at the time of agreement. However, that might be a technical problem, for which situmta is less helpful (see Rav Elyashiv, Piskei Din Rabbaniim V, p. 265). Not only do the Rambam/Shulchan Aruch (CM 207:16) not accept Tosafot and require a different system to overcome asmachta, but the Rama (ad loc.), who accepts Tosafot, does so only based on the second distinction, not based on it being accepted practice.
While it is not simple to ignore the law of the land and local practice regarding monetary matters, Israeli law gives the courts the prerogative to decide whether to enforce penalty clauses to the fullest degree. Often, they do not. Instead of either accepting or rejecting the clause, it is reasonable to use it as a guide to figure damage based on a high estimation of what could be the damage even if it is not proven (see Pitchei Choshen, Kinyanim 21:(25)). This is an accepted approach in our batei din. In this case, we will also factor in that pl also did not carry out all the obligations he accepted. Therefore, we will set the amount that def have to pay for breach of contract at 25,000 NIS.
P'ninat Mishpat (834)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
691 - Who Breached the Contract? part 3
692 - Who Breached the Contract? – part IV
693 - Agent who Did Not Set Agent’s Fee
Load More
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
Igrot Hare’aya Trying to Arrange Purchase of Land in Eretz Yisrael – part II
#229 Date and Place: 13 Tishrei 5670 (1909), Yafo
P'ninat Mishpat Profits from Formerly Joint Swimming Pool – part
(based on ruling 81110 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
P'ninat Mishpat Repercussions of a Sale That Turned Out Not Happening – part II
(based on ruling 83045 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
P'ninat Mishpat A Commercial Rental for a Closed Business – part II
based on ruling 80047 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Agricultural Water Rights – part I
based on ruling 84122 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
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: Sharing in Plumbing Expenses – part I
based on ruling 85013 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Rabbis in Midrash
Lessons
fast navigation
Moreshet Shaul Hashem Is your Shadow – part I
Based on Siach Shaul, Pirkei Machshava V’Hadracha p. 420 – an address from 1941
P'ninat Mishpat A Non-Contractor in Changing Times – part I
(based on ruling 85128 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
Moreshet Shaul Our King on Rosh Hashana, Our Father on Yom Kippur.
Based on Aroch Siach, p. 221 (Rav Shaul Yisraeli)
P'ninat Mishpat A Non-Contractor in Changing Times – part II
(based on ruling 85128 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
Moreshet Shaul Hashem Is your Shadow – part II
Based on Siach Shaul, Pirkei Machshava V’Hadracha p. 420 – an address from 1941
Parashat Hashavua Happiness for the Right Reasons
[With painful longing, we share these divrei Torah from our co-Rosh Kollel for close to 40 years, Harav Moshe Ehrenreich zt”l.]
