Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: Ribbit as part of the price: Def claims that the fee for the second project should have been 66,000 NIS and the 142,000 NIS was because of def’s demand that the payment be put off for years, so that he need not pay the difference because it is forbidden to pay ribbit. Beit din rejects this claim. The itemized stages of payment in the price estimate demonstrate that the payment is for the work, not for waiting. Although def’s agreement is conditional on late payment, it does not turn the charges into late-payment increases, but is a concession regarding time of payment. Additionally, as long as there is not a demand of extra pay for extending the payment until after the completion of the work, it is not ribbit.
A few more percent for hard work in the beginning: The expert who estimated that pl completed 35% of the work when he stopped, said that it is traditional for payment of 10% more than the amount due when stopping after the first stage because the first stage includes extra work, but the first beit din obligated only 35% because there was no proof the beginning work was harder. The appeal beit din noted that according to the division of payments in the estimate, pl stopped working when 50% of the payment was due. While this is not enough to obligate 50%, it lends credence to the idea of adding on a few percent, and so the appeal to obligate 38.5% is accepted.
Payment of VAT: When stating the amount due, the first beit din did not write that coverage of VAT should be added. Def says there is no need for VAT because the payment is for compensation, not work. However, pl is correct that the payment is for professional work rendered, which requires paying VAT, the payment of which falls on the recipient of the services.
Payment plan: The first beit din spread out the payment plan over six payments. The general rule for payment of a beit din ruling is 30 days. It is true that this can be extended when a large amount of money is deemed to require more time to arrange. However, since both the original wait for payment and the length of the adjudication were great, it is not right to make pl wait so long. Therefore, we decide that the payment should be in two installments, a month apart.
P'ninat Mishpat (801)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
797 - P'ninat Mishpat: Amounts and Conditions of Payment to an Architect – part III
798 - P'ninat Mishpat: Amounts and Conditions of Payment to an Architect – part IV
799 - P'ninat Mishpat: Normalizing an Agreement that Becomes Absurd
Load More
P'ninat Mishpat: Return of Down Payment Due to War – part II
based on ruling 84044 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Elul 5785
P'ninat Mishpat: A Seller with Questionable Rights to the Property – part II
based on ruling 84062 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Cheshvan 5786
P'ninat Mishpat: Amounts and Conditions of Payment to an Architect – part II
based on ruling 83061 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Sivan 5785
P'ninat Mishpat: Did Any Furniture Go to the Buyer? – part I
based on ruling 84093 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Kislev 5786
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
Raffle of Property in Eretz Yisrael for Tzedaka
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook: – #220
18 Sivan 5784
Interceding Regarding a Will
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook #105
Sivan 28 5782
A Commercial Rental for a Closed Business – part II
based on ruling 80047 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Shvat 1 5782
