Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: A one-page agreement between the sides maps out the rights and the responsibilities of the two. Pl claims that the document is binding even though it was not signed. Def contradicted himself on the matter at different junctures of the adjudication.
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
707 - Compensation for Transfer of Business to One Partner – part I
708 - Compensation for Transfer of Business to One Partner – part II
709 - Compensation for Transfer of Business to One Partner – part IV
Load More
Such an agreement need not be signed, as no document is necessary. The Rama (Choshen Mishpat 176:3) says that partners for joint work do not need a kinyan, and oral agreement is binding. This is all the more so when there was not just commitment to future joint work but rather that the two actually worked together, as beginning work is itself a kinyan (Ramban, Bava Batra 9a). According to def, that there is no partnership but that pl is just a senior worker, work agreements are certainly made binding by the beginning of work (Shulchan Aruch, CM 333:1).
According to pl, the two are partners, and therefore pl only has to compensate def for giving her the second half of the business. Def argues that pl cannot be a partner, since everything external was done in def’s name, and he made all of the financial investments.
Fundamentally, beit din agrees with pl. The facts that the heading of the agreement is "Partnership Agreement" and that the profits were to be split 50-50 are among several indications that the two were partners. There are many different types of partnerships, differing concerning what each one brings to helping the business as well as how they will be rewarded. Since def is in charge of the technical elements, payments, and infrastructure, it is not surprising that all the external contracts are in his name. Regarding investment, the great discount in salary that pl gave to the business is also an investment and risk.
Next time we will see the machloket between dayanim on the extent of the partnership.
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 Repercussions of a Sale That Turned Out Not Happening – part II
(based on ruling 83045 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
P'ninat Mishpat A Commercial Rental for a Closed Business – part II
based on ruling 80047 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Igrot Hare’aya Trying to Arrange Purchase of Land in Eretz Yisrael
#222 Date and Place: 2 Elul 5669 (1909), Rechovot
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: A Contractor’s Leaving the Job in the Middle – part II
based on ruling 84013 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Sharing in Plumbing Expenses – part I
based on ruling 85013 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Multiple Agreements and Parties – part III
based on appeal of ruling 80082 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
