Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: The contract states that pl1-4 must paint it before returning it. Nevertheless, pl1-4 argue that since the contract also says that they received the apartment painted, since this is false, they are not bound by the clause to paint. This argument is wrong on several grounds. For one, generally, if one signs that he attests to the proper condition of an apartment, he accepts the consequences of the situation when it were true, even if it is not objectively so. In other words, pl1-4 could not have complained about the apartment’s state after signing such a clause. It does not include a concession of the landlord that they can return it in the same form.
Also, in this case, the rental was effectively a six-year rental with a group of women (the group’s makeup partially changed sporadically). The rental started with a freshly painted apartment, and must end, based on the contract, with a freshly painted apartment. If pl1-4 wanted to treat each (yearly) renewal of the contract as a new rental, they should have painted it themselves every year. The fact that they decided not to should not deny def the proper return of the apartment. Although pl1-4 argued that the responsibility should be equally assumed by all the renters over the years, if those who stayed in the apartment or entered it did not demand that those leaving leave money for the painting, that was their decision. Therefore, pl1-4 must pay for the painting.
Def claimed 7,000 NIS for the painting, which is what he paid a professional painter. Beit din awarded only 3,000 NIS, corresponding to the expense of a non-professional job. The contract does not say that the painting must be professional, and def implied in the hearing that pl1-4 could have done it themselves. Since def led pl1-4 to believe that he was letting them get away with not painting and did not inform them that he would sue, he had no right to spend more on what turns out to be their account than they would have had to spend themselves.
Def cannot charge pl1-4 for the loss of his renters. There is no evidence that pl1-4’s behavior directly caused the new renters to not take the apartment. Indications are that the renters decided to back out of the agreement because of the quality of the apartment (as def blamed pl1-4 for lashon hara about it), and the new renters were unlikely allowed to back out. If def decided to let them "off the hook," he cannot obligate pl1-4 in their place.
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
755 - P'ninat Mishpat: Overpaying Rent by One of the Roommates – part I
756 - P'ninat Mishpat: Overpaying Rent by One of the Roommates – part II
757 - P'ninat Mishpat: Who Has Rights in the Courtyard?
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 Limits of Interest Rate for Loan with Heter Iska – part II
based on ruling 80033 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 III
based on ruling 84013 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: A Seller with Questionable Rights to the Property – part I
based on ruling 84062 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat Complaints about Contractor’s Work – part II
(based on ruling 83037.1 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
