P'ninat Mishpat: Unsuccessful Transfer of Yeshiva – part II | Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Beit Midrash

Beit Midrash

Sections
Chemdat Yamim
P'ninat Mishpat

קטגוריה משנית

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

Case: The defendant (=def), a non-profit run by the rosh yeshiva (=rydf) had run a yeshiva for years and did not want to continue due to financial and educational difficulties. They negotiated with the plaintiff (=pl), another educational non-profit, to have them take over the yeshiva at its location and pay rent to def. A written agreement was signed in June 2022. After starting to enter the educational sphere and preparing, physically and educationally at the end of the 5782 "academic year," pl informed the students’ parents soon before the 5783 academic year that pl would be closing the yeshiva. [We will deal with different elements of the dispute in installments.] Pl demands reimbursement for the outlay of money to prepare the yeshiva, only to be undermined by def’s breaches of contract, claiming they prevented pl from continuing to operate the yeshiva. These include def’s refusal to do sufficient repairs/renovations.

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.