Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: The dayanim disagreed on the ruling.
Dayan 1: It appears and is not disproven that def told enough about the specific car. Pl knew that he had to be careful about oil, which is a clear sign of a car at risk. The article that def but not pl had seen discouraged buying this type of car, due to high risk of great expense, but def did not necessarily know the extent of his car’s problem. It is true that mekach ta’ut (null sale due to unknown problems) applies even if the seller also did not know the problem (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 232:11). The gemara (Ketubot 75b) posits that if the buyer could readily have found out about the blemish, he is not able to nullify the sale, and the Maggid Mishneh (Mechira 15:3) rules this way. The Shvut Yaakov (III:169) claims that although one can back out of a mekach ta’ut even if time goes by after discovering the problem, if he could have known about the problem before the sale, he cannot nullify the sale. The Aruch Hashulchan (CM 232:5) disagrees in practice because the buyer does not have to suspect the seller of tricking him. However, in this case, pl had further impetus to look into problems with this car because def had told him about the oil consumption and a check of the meaning of this problem would not have been difficult or expensive. Therefore, pl cannot extract money from def. While def could have given a more pessimistic picture, which is likely more accurate, he is not required to be generous with information.
Dayan 2 – Since the head mechanic had clearly given def a very pessimistic picture, and def chose to share with pl only the optimistic statement-in-passing of a junior mechanic, def misinformed pl. Therefore, def must return the sales price minus 2,000 NIS which reflects the use pl got from the car until the severe problems arose.
Dayan 3 – Def did not act properly, but based on dayan 1’s reasoning, pl still cannot claim mekach ta’ut. Under those circumstances, I would have preferred to make a compromise, but since my colleagues thought it is right in this case to rule based on straight Halacha, I agree with dayan 1 not to nullify the sale.
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
773 - P'ninat Mishpat: Rent of an Apartment Without a Protected Room
774 - P'ninat Mishpat: A Used Car with a Tendency for Engine Problems
775 - P'ninat Mishpat: Can the Tenant Take Off for Theft?
Load More
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
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 Connecting Disciplines in Torah Study
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook 103 – part III
P'ninat Mishpat Limits of Interest Rate for Loan with Heter Iska – part I
based on ruling 80033 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat Repercussions of a Sale that Turned Out Not Happening – part III
(based on ruling 83045 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Dividing Parents’ Resources when Mother Still Alive
based on ruling 82017 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Realtor’s Fee on Large Commercial Building – part I
(based on ruling 85031 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
P'ninat Mishpat 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
