Responsibility for a Replaced Water Heating System | Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Beit Midrash

YeshivaThe torah world Gateway

Beit Midrash

Sections
Chemdat Yamim
P'ninat Mishpat

קטגוריה משנית

Female Lesson Parashat Hashavua Series'Library Piskei Din (Hebrew)Test Yourself

Case: The plaintiff (=pl), a yeshiva, bought a solar hot water system from the defendant (=def), who also installed it. Def set up the system so that it could handle excess heat without pl’s intervention. Pl paid def the full price of 173,000 NIS. Pl used the system’s timer to supply hot water to the dorms only a few hours a day. The system worked well until the end of the school year. In August, after pl’s workers closed the circulation of water because the students left, one of the tanks exploded. Def rerouted the system, and later two more tanks exploded and three more were damaged. Def told pl not to rely on the system anymore and urged them to get a different system (elsewhere), which pl did for 180,000 NIS. Beit din’s expert reported that the system was vulnerable when not used for extended periods, especially when parts of the system were cut off from the rest. He estimated the damage to the system at 29,000 NIS. Pl demands return of 173,000 NIS because def provided pl with a system that was unfit for the job needed. They also complain about def’s flawed advice to buy the new system. Def responds that pl caused the problems by using the hot water only a few hours a day and then shutting off the system, about which pl had not informed def.

Ruling: With the features pl included, the system could have operated safely had pl used it differently. Therefore, pl cannot nullify the sale based on mekach taut. In fact, it can still be used with replacements and repairs. Def cannot be blamed for the damages, as he installed the system properly and did not give the directions to detach parts of it during the summer break.

P'ninat Mishpat (824)

Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit

731 - Problems Arising from the Sale of Stores in New Project

732 - Responsibility for a Replaced Water Heating System

733 - Compensation for Transfer of Business to One Partner – part I

There was, though, deficiency in def’s work from the time the problems surfaced. Def advised that it was not salvageable and that a new system was needed, which was exaggerated and therefore incorrect. Def should have figured out why the tanks were damaged, as our expert did, if necessary by bringing in someone who could do so, which would have made buying a new system unnecessary.

Halacha discusses various factors that determine when a professional who gives bad advice that causes loss of money is obligated (see Bava Kama 99b): One with high-level expertise has reason to be exempt. One who is paid is more likely to be obligated. While def is an expert on some level, he admitted to not having much experience with systems of this magnitude. A third factor is whether the professional knew that the client was relying upon him. (ibid. 100a). The Rif (ad loc.) says that he is obligated only if the reliance was explicit, and the Shulchan Aruch accepts this opinion. Tosafot say that implicit reliance suffices, and some Acharonim rule that way. In our case, while it was not explicit, the reliance was very clear from the interactions, as def continued to be connected as they were getting the new system. Therefore, all should agree that def is obligated.

Getting the new system made the old system useless, wasting the latter’s value, which is 173,000 NIS minus the devaluation that already existed without def’s fault (29,000 NIS). Therefore, the payment due is 144,000 NIS.

P'ninat Mishpat