- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
22
Ruling: An agent who introduces the property to the buyer is usually considered the purchase’s "effective factor," who deserves the agent’s fee. The claim that even without the agent, the buyer would have learned of the property from someone else is not a reason to preclude payment from the one who introduced it. This is certainly so here, where, by def’s admission, pl and def had 20-30 phone conversations and exchanged many emails. The job of an agent includes bringing the parties to agreement, which sometimes includes trying to convince one side more than the other. Thus even if pl’s belief that she saved def from losing apt is untrue, pl did enough to facilitate the sale to deserve a fee. The fact that pl initially presented an inaccurate price did not end up being a problem, as def determined that apt was well worth his while even at the higher price.
At different times during his presentation and answering questions, def said things that contradict his contention that it was unclear that pl was an agent (who always receives a fee from buyers). The ad he saw referred to pl’s business as an agency. Def said that he did not ask pl whether/how much she would take as a fee because he was afraid to do so, as agents like to take 2%. Also, when the renter allowed buyers to see apt, def was there with several agents and buyers, which would not happen if pl was sel’s marketer.
We usually uphold the Israeli law that an agent must be licensed and sign clients to a contract, as this is a proper practice that limits disagreements. However, pl is an experienced agent whose rebbe is against her holding a government license, and many in that segment of society (to which def belongs) do not sign people on an agent’s contract, seeing it as a lack of trust. We are unwilling to facilitate def coming in bad faith and using technicalities and patently false claims to avoid paying for a valuable service he received.
Next week we will see a disagreement between the dayanim on how much def should pay.

P'ninat Mishpat (781)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
693 - Who Breached the Contract? – part IV
694 - Agent who Did Not Set Agent’s Fee
695 - Did Beit Din Research Enough?
Load More

P'ninat Mishpat: Rent of an Apartment Without a Protected Room
based on ruling 84036 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Iyar 5784

P'ninat Mishpat: Rental of an Apartment that Was Not Quite Ready – part II
based on ruling 82031 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Iyar 5784

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

P'ninat Mishpat: Normalizing an Agreement that Becomes Absurd
based on ruling 83069 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Sivan 5785

Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit

Departure of an Uncle to Eretz Yisrael
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook: Vol. I, #1 , p. 1-2 – part II
Tevet 21 5781

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

Payments after a Gradual End of Employment
(Based on ruling 82024 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Nissan 5783

Limiting Exorbitant Lawyer’s Fees – part I
(Based on ruling 81120 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
Tishrei 29 5783

Presence of Hashem in the Mind of a Sinner
Various Rabbis | 5773

Jews and Idols
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff | Elul 2 5775

Dispute over Sales Price and Product Quality
part I
Various Rabbis | 5572

Jews and Idols
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff | Elul 2 5775

Asking Restraint from Insulted New Yishuv – #334
Date and Place: Tammuz 5670 (1910)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Tammuz 5785
Daf Yomi Avodah Zarah Daf 15
R' Eli Stefansky | 7 Tammuz 5785
