Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: Beit din rejects the claim for compensation for the delay in renting out the stores due to the damage. Since we ruled that def had additional time to make the stores available, not being able to rent them out earlier than they were cannot be payable damage.
Regarding payment for the damage, since def originally accepted responsibility, he is not believed to change their mind on the matter (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 80:1). However, we reject the approach taken in pl’s engineer’s report. In the hearings, it came out that def gave pl tiles and told him to install them. Def said that he could have had workers install them, but pl did not want them to do so; pl disputes this. However, originally pl did not complain about the tiles. It is unclear if there are presently a few broken tiles or somewhat more. Since we have decided that def is responsible, it follows that def is a modeh b’miktzat (admits part of the claim), which requires him to swear on the level of Torah law on the additional amount he denies. This is replaced in our days by a partial payment (see Shulchan Aruch, CM 12:2). We accept the approach that the amount of the partial payment depends on the dayanim’s intuition regarding the specific case.
We do not accept the approach that pl can demand replacement of all of the tiles. It is true that our preference is to compensate damage by returning the situation to the equivalent of what existed before (see Eretz Hemdah-Gazit ruling 81095). This might indicate switching all the tiles to keep uniformity, which is aesthetically significant. However, one must consider how many tiles need to be replaced and the percentage of the floor they represent. In this case, despite the disagreement on exactly how many tiles were damaged, it is certainly unjustified to change them all. There are also ways of removing the signs of damage from many of the tiles. Considering the partial admission and the prospects for fixing them, we obligate def to pay 1,000 NIS. Def also has to pay for fixing the hole in the wall.
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
704 - P'ninat Mishpat: Compensation for Transfer of Business to One Partner
705 - Problems Arising from the Sale of Stores in New Project
706 - Responsibility for a Replaced Water Heating System
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 Who Breached the Contract? – part IV
Based on ruling 81087 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 P'ninat Mishpat: How Many Dayanim?
based on ruling 84139-1 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 P'ninat Mishpat: Undoing a Problematic Partnership – part III
based on ruling 84061 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'NINAT MISHPAT: A Mess of Loans, Repayments and Grievances – part II
based on ruling 83033 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
