P'ninat Mishpat: Benefit from Unsolicited Efforts of the Plaintiff | Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Beit Midrash

Beit Midrash

Sections
Chemdat Yamim
P'ninat Mishpat

קטגוריה משנית

Parashat Hashavua Series'Library Piskei Din (Hebrew)Test Yourself

Case: The defendant (=def), a non-profit, had run a yeshiva for years and did not want to continue due to financial and educational difficulties. They negotiated with the plaintiff (=pl), another educational non-profit, to have them take over the yeshiva at its location and pay rent to def. A written agreement was signed in June 2022. After starting to enter the educational sphere and preparing, physically and educationally, at the end of the 5782 "academic year," pl informed the students’ parents soon before the 5783 academic year that pl would close the yeshiva. [Our presentation of part of the appeal deals with the following element.] Pl demands to be paid for the outlays they made on behalf of the yeshiva, especially in staff salaries during the summer of 5782.

Abridgement of First Court Ruling: Testimony indicated that while the yeshiva’s survival was questionable, pl made improvements that increased its viability, which may warrant def’s compensation. However, since def had spent a lot to keep the yeshiva operating, they were unwilling for further investment. This makes it like the Talmudic case of a field not made for planting (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 375:1), where clear benefit from the actions appears lacking. Additionally, the Rashba (Shut VI, 111) states that if the recipient explicitly refuses to pay for claimed benefits (as written in the agreement), he is exempt. While some say there is still payment when there is clear benefit, this is not the case here.

P'ninat Mishpat (803)

Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit

789 - P'ninat Mishpat: Multiple Agreements and Parties – part III

790 - P'ninat Mishpat: Multiple Agreements and Parties – part II

791 - P'ninat Mishpat: Late and Flawed Apartment

Claims of Litigants on this Point: Pl argues that the yeshiva could not have survived without the improvements, and that they paid to make a "camp" for the students during vacation because this was something the yeshiva owed to the students.

Appeal Ruling: The agreement prescribes pl’s work as beginning after summer break so that nothing pl did is governed by agreement, but by providing benefit. The Rashba (ibid.) rules that if one tells one who is about to do something on his behalf that he is not interested in the benefit he plans to do, he is exempt from paying for it, and it is clear from the Rif and other Rishonim that one cannot force benefit and compensation for it on someone. In this case, pl admitted that def told him not to make expenditures, and they also did not end up helping.

Regarding the expenditures for the "camp," even if def was obligated to make them, the rule is that when Reuven pays Shimon for the loan that Levi took from him, Levi is not required to pay Reuven (see Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 128:1; see Shach ad loc. 5).

Although pl claims that he outlaid the money because def gave him reason to rely on him (histamchut) that there would be a yeshiva, the original ruling correctly explained why histamchut does not apply in this case.

P'ninat Mishpat