Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: Seccon’s pricing is much higher than pl’s, which apparently indicates that they represent different levels of professional standards; def hired pl according to his prices and standards. Also, the objectivity of a professional hired by a litigant is always suspect. Therefore, we will neither base our rulings on seccon’s report nor require pl to take responsibility for minor aesthetic imperfections.
The Rama (Choshen Mishpat 306:8), regarding mistakes in the writing of a sefer Torah, posits that a worker is responsible for the type of mistakes that professionals of his type should not make, but that the sofer has the right to fix them. He also posits that if the worker fixed blemishes that professionals of his type are not responsible to fix, the employer must pay him for them. On the other hand, the Aruch Hashulchan (CM 306:15) rules that the employer can hire someone else to do the fixing if he does not trust the worker. The Pitchei Choshen (Sechirut 13:(41)) agrees with the Aruch Hashulchan, even if the new worker’s fee to be subtracted from the worker’s pay is higher than the original worker’s. In Eretz Hemdah-Gazit ruling 74005, beit din ruled that one can apply the Aruch Hashulchan only when there are verifiable grounds for not trusting the worker. Otherwise, hiring someone else to do the fixing is breach of contract, and the employer is in the weaker position (see Shulchan Aruch and Rama, CM 333:4). In this case, though, def had asked pl to fix certain clear flaws, and pl did not fix them properly. Therefore, def was justified in bringing someone else to fix it, and the cost can be deducted from pl’s fee.
Regarding damages pl caused, pl had the status of a shomer sachar (a paid watchman), who is obligated for damages, even if they were not based on outright negligence, as long as the damage was not beyond his control (Shulchan Aruch, CM 306:1). It is not a simple question whether the obligation is on the contractor or on his workers who did the damage. Pl was willing to take responsibility as far as fixing the damages, and in general, contractors are seen as the address for all such matters, since they choose the workers and deal with the employer. When it is possible and normal to fix the problem (as opposed to accepting the flaw as a fait accompli), the price of fixing is subtracted from the fee due the worker (Shach, CM 387:1).
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
695 - The Binding Nature of the Tentative Agreement – part I
696 - Contractors Fixing their Damages
697 - Rights of a Yishuv on Peripheral Land – 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
P'ninat Mishpat Profits from Formerly Joint Swimming Pool – part
(based on ruling 81110 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Undoing a Problematic Partnership – part II
based on ruling 84061 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
