Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: The first question is whether pl deserves a full refund because she did not get to go on the trip for understandable reasons. At first glance, since pl signed an agreement with refund conditions, she should be bound by them and receive no refund. However, we must consider whether that obligation is binding regarding the unexpected extenuating circumstance of war.
In general, if that which prevented the carrying out of an agreement came from both sides, the worker (here, def) does not receive pay, but if the employer could have avoided it (here, pl), she does pay. If a widespread problem prevented fulfillment from both sides, the Rama (Choshen Mishpat 321:1) rules that the promised payment is made. This seems to contradict the Rama’s ruling that when neither are to blame the worker does not get paid (ibid. 334:1). The Aruch Hashulchan (CM 334:10) uses the following distinction to reconcile the sources. If the worker is ready to do the work, but situations make it unfeasible for the employer to benefit, the worker deserves pay, whereas if the worker is also not able to do the work, he does not. In this case, def provided the service for whoever wanted, and therefore would be able to keep the pay. Although some argue on the Aruch Hashulchan, def would be able to hold on to the money in a case of a doubt.
In any case, there are other reasons pl cannot demand a refund. The main one is that pl, who lived in America, was not prevented from taking the trip, which did go on. While we appreciate her reasons not to, this is not reason that def should lose on his investment of resources into the trip. He protected himself from such loss with the refund conditions and recommended to his clients to protect themselves with travel insurance. Therefore, def’s efforts to obtain a partial refund for pl were beyond the letter of the law.
We continue next time with other elements of the ruling.
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
783 - P'ninat Mishpat: Reducing Amount Owed Due to Interest Taken
784 - P'ninat Mishpat: Dividing Returns on Partially Cancelled Trip – part I
785 - P'ninat Mishpat: Dividing Returns on Partially Cancelled Trip – part II
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
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: A Contractor’s Leaving the Job in the Middle – part II
based on ruling 84013 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'NINAT MISHPAT: A Mess of Loans, Repayments and Grievances – part II
based on ruling 83033 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Did Any Furniture Go to the Buyer? – part II
based on ruling 84093 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Multiple Agreements and Parties – part III
based on appeal of ruling 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
