- Sections
- P'ninat Mishpat
7
Ruling: There are two parts to creating a binding agreement – gemirut da’at (a firm decision) and an act of kinyan. Regarding gemirut da’at, we see that def not only received the price estimate but commented on matters relating to it, including asking about payment in installments and asking whether he would receive receipts for his payments. In electronic messaging and voice messages, never did it come up that def did not accept the amount that had been asked. Therefore, we must conclude that pl had decided to accept the fee of 24,000 NIS.
Regarding the act of kinyan, which makes the agreement permanent, there were actually multiple ones that were done. For one, the money paid effects a kinyan kesef (money). Secondly, the beginning of work is also a kinyan, specifically in the realm of workers (see Ramban, Bava Metzia 76b). Therefore, whatever conditions were in place at that time became binding. It is not necessary to sign on a contract or even have one if it is clear what the agreement is, and a price estimate which was never openly put in question is proof thereof. It is less clear if traveling to the place of the work is a valid kinyan regarding work that is paid by the job (kablanut) (see doubt on the matter in Pitchei Choshen, Sechirut 7:(9)), but we have seen that there are other kinyanim that clearly apply here.
One might think that since there is disagreement whether pl agreed to a reduction, that we would say that the one who wants to receive more money must prove that he deserves it. However, this is not so here on a few grounds. In general, we say that a doubt that arose after a kinyan was made does not undo that which occurred through the kinyan (see Bava Batra 29b). Along these lines, if there is a status quo of obligation (chezkat chiyuv), we say that we will go through with the assumption of obligation until proven otherwise (see Taz to Choshen Mishpat 190:13). Finally, the claim that the other party was mochel (relinquished rights) is a particularly difficult claim to accept (Rama, CM 70:1). Whereas the claim that one paid the obligation can be a strong one, that is because obligations are made to be paid (see Rav Nachum Persovitz to Bava Batra 5b). In contrast, obligations are not made to be relinquished by the one who deserves to take advantage of them.
Therefore, def must pay the full amount due based on the price estimate.

P'ninat Mishpat (762)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
785 - P'ninat Mishpat: Hezek Re’iya in Our Times
786 - P'ninat Mishpat: How Much Was Agreed to Pay for Renovations?
787 - P'ninat Mishpat: Realtor Fee Despite the Buyer’s Refusal?
Load More

Profits from Formerly Joint Swimming Pool.
part I (based on ruling 81110 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | 18 Sivan 5784

P'ninat Mishpat: Who Has Rights in the Courtyard?
based on ruling 81059 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Kislev 5784

P'ninat Mishpat: Overpaying Rent by One of the Roommates – part I
based on ruling 84001 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Kislev 5784

A Landlord's Responsibility
Various Rabbis | 17 Shvat 5768

Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit

Connecting Disciplines in Torah Study
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook 103 – part III
Sivan 15 5782

Limits of Interest Rate for Loan with Heter Iska – part II
based on ruling 80033 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Sivan 15 5782

Limiting Exorbitant Lawyer’s Fees – part I
(Based on ruling 81120 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
Tishrei 29 5783

Who Breached the Contract? – part IV
Based on ruling 81087 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Iyar 20 5783
Daf Yomi Sanhedrin Daf 54
R' Eli Stefansky | 11 Shevat 5785

P'ninat Mishpat: Unpaid Fees of a No-Show to Beit Din
based on ruling 84052 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Shevat 5784

THANK TRUMP BUT SING TO G-D & the IDF- Parshat Beshalach & Tu BiShvat
Rabbi Ari Shvat | Shevat 5785 11
