Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: [Last time we saw that pl did not have the right to get a refund from def because of the refund conditions that she agreed to and because she was not prevented from taking part in the trip.]
We do not find that def obligated himself to secure a refund for pl. He acted beyond the call of duty by working to try to return money for def. The initial efforts did not become binding to follow through with returning more than the agreement between the two of them obligated him. Additionally, it is clear from communications between the sides that pl was aware that she was rejecting def’s offer and taking an alternate path that was potentially damaging to pl, which also makes the offer meaningless at this point.
On the other hand, we must analyze how to view the money def received from ss. This is along the lines discussed in the Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 183:6) of an agent who bought something on behalf of a buyer and received more than expected from the seller. Here too, the clients, including pl, paid money for services to ss, who, through def’s involvement, returned money that was not required. The Shulchan Aruch rules that if the price was set, the extra is split between the buyer and the agent, and if it is not set, all goes to the buyer. The Rama comments that if the seller explicitly said he gave it because of the agent, the agent receives the extra. Rashi (Ketubot 98b) explains that the reason to split the extra is because we are unsure because of to whom the seller gave it, thus explaining the Rama about the importance of the seller’s statement. The Rif explains that it is split because the agent was able to receive the money only because he had the buyer’s money to spend. So too here, def was able to receive the refund that corresponds to pl’s payment to ss only because of pl’s money, and therefore pl should receive half of it.
Therefore, def must pay pl $1,305.
P'ninat Mishpat (835)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
784 - P'ninat Mishpat: Dividing Returns on Partially Cancelled Trip – part I
785 - P'ninat Mishpat: Dividing Returns on Partially Cancelled Trip – part II
786 - P'ninat Mishpat: Using Car that Was Supposed to be Returned
Load More
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
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 Limits of Interest Rate for Loan with Heter Iska – part I
based on ruling 80033 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Igrot Hare’aya Raffle of Property in Eretz Yisrael for Tzedaka
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook: – #220
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Undoing a Problematic Partnership – part III
based on ruling 84061 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Agricultural Water Rights – part II
based on ruling 84122 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
