Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: Guarantors of the sides: The nature of an entity such as def is that as the apartments become ready for occupancy, the association gives over rights and obligations to the owners of each unit, and the association "loses" its assets to its members. Therefore, pl demanded, due to an expected lengthy adjudication, guarantees of payment if pl will win awards. Def countered that the owners of pl should be made guarantors if pl as a business is not able to pay the counterclaims; beit din helped the sides negotiate a mechanism to address these concerns.
Validity of the signed agreement: Def claim that the written agreement is invalid for a few reasons: 1. There are indications that it was predated; 2. Only def’s first chairman of the board (= FCB) signed it, whereas def’s charter requires two signatories; 3. FCB is a friend of members of pl and therefore was not supposed to deal with matters between pl and def because of conflict of interest. Pl responds that there is nothing wrong with that friendship, which helped the project proceed quickly and harmoniously. Pl also point out that def were required to have a written agreement with a development company, and this is the only one they have.
It is true that def’s charter requires two signatories for valid agreements. The Law of Companies says that while an agreement that is against the goals of the company is void, an agreement whose weakness is lack of authorization can be approved after the fact by those with authority within the company. In this case, def used its affiliation with pl to fulfill obligations, including fulfilling the obligations of the tender. The actions of def thus confirmed pl’s status, and since there was no other agreement between the sides and def paid several installments to pl based on it, def effectively confirmed the agreement. Furthermore, since on a whole slew of contracts, FCB signed by himself, according to def’s argument, none of them would be valid, which is an unviable position. Furthermore, when FCB was replaced, his successor made no attempt to void the agreement and/or change it. Therefore, the agreement as it exists is valid.
We will continue next time with other elements of the dispute.
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
780 - P'ninat Mishpat: Normalizing an Agreement that Becomes Absurd
781 - P'ninat Mishpat: End of Tenure of Development Company – part I
782 - P'ninat Mishpat: End of Tenure of Development Company – part II
Load More
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
Igrot Hare’aya Raffle of Property in Eretz Yisrael for Tzedaka
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook: – #220
P'ninat Mishpat Profits from Formerly Joint Swimming Pool – part
(based on ruling 81110 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
Igrot Hare’aya Departure of an Uncle to Eretz Yisrael
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook: Vol. I, #1 , p. 1-2 – 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
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Multiple Agreements and Parties – part IV
based on final ruling of 80082 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
