Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: Was there histamchut? [We pointed out last time that the contract need not have been legally binding if def caused pl to rely upon def’s commitment to go through with the deal, and this caused loss.] If, as def claims, pl was aware that the second signatory (=ssgn) did not plan to sign, they did not have the necessary level of assurance that investment in the transfer of the yeshiva was safe. Ssgn testified in beit din that he informed pl, and def presented a letter from ssgn to pl to this effect. However, this letter was undated, and we do not know if it was ever given; rydf and def’s lawyer contradicted themselves as to whether it was delivered by hand or by email (which they have not presented). Pl’s former director testified convincingly that pl was led to believe that ssgn would sign. There is also strong circumstantial evidence of the same. Def made a large gathering to announce pl’s role and sent word to the press, which only makes sense if there was a final decision. It is also agreed that rydf is the dominant force in def’s operation and decision making. It is standard practice to assume that when such a person gives his word and certainly signs on an agreement, the decision is approved by the institution.
Was there breach of contract? Repairs/renovation: The contract states that the sides "will come to an agreement on the extent of minimum repair needed for reasonable use by the students, which def will do, as is proper for a rented property." While small repairs were done, pl claims they did not reach a reasonable standard for the yeshiva’s needs. Beit din rejects this claim. A witness testified that there were long negotiations on the extent of repairs, and the contract’s language indicates that def is not required to provide more than the minimum. Although the Rama (Choshen Mishpat 314:1) says that even if the renter came into a property and did not complain about problems that would make it objectively unlivable, the landlord must raise the situation to livable, but that does not apply here. A student testified that the conditions were livable, and if pl required more, it should have found clearer expression in the agreement.
We will continue with other alleged breaches and other matters.
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
767 - P'ninat Mishpat: Unsuccessful Transfer of Yeshiva – part I
768 - P'ninat Mishpat: Unsuccessful Transfer of Yeshiva – part II
769 - P'ninat Mishpat: Unsuccessful Transfer of Yeshiva – part III
Load More
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
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 Who Breached the Contract? – part IV
Based on ruling 81087 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
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
