Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: [Last time we saw that pl was an effective factor in the transactions and that while def are generally responsible for what they signed, their lack of full understanding will play a role.]
The Law of Real Estate Agents includes a requirement that the client sign a detailed agent’s contract, including details on the property involved, which was missing here. Our beit din recognizes the validity of this law in regard to cases in which it might not have been clear to the client that he would have to pay for the service. This applies to this case, in which, with def’s limitations, it is quite possible they did not understand. Therefore, pl is not entitled to an agent’s fee.
On the other hand, while generally the full amount is due regardless of how much work was needed (a feature of a real estate agent), def should pay pl only for the amount of work he put into it. This is based on the concept of one who did work for someone else, without agreement that he would be doing so. This in turn is based on the Rashba (Shut IV:125), who talks about two reasons to obligate – local minhag and the benefit one provided with his work. He writes both because there are times when one of the factors is missing. In this case, the conditions of the law prevent the minhag from being able to obligate full payment, and therefore there is only room to obligate based on the work and its benefit. Based on the very significant amount of work that pl put into this acquisition, we obligate def 10,000 NIS. According to beit din’s minority opinion, pl should receive a 1% fee, as def should have understood what they were signing. Only because of the slight possibility that they did not, he reduced the fee from 2% to 1%.
We reject def’s claim to have money returned from that which was paid on the first transaction. First, there were two different contracts that were signed, and def should have been aware of the contents of each one and what it obligated. The fact that they already paid strengthens the assumption that they had been aware that they were obligated.
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
692 - Did the Renovations Cause Damages?
693 - Realtor Fee Without a Contract – part II
694 - The Binding Nature of the Tentative Agreement – part II
Load More
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
P'ninat Mishpat Payments after a Gradual End of Employment
(Based on ruling 82024 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat Repercussions of a Sale that Turned Out Not Happening – part III
(based on ruling 83045 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
P'ninat Mishpat Limits of Interest Rate for Loan with Heter Iska – part I
based on ruling 80033 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
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: Unsuccessful Transfer of Yeshiva – part V
based on appeal ruling 82138 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Sharing in Plumbing Expenses – part II
based on ruling 85013 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
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
