P'ninat Mishpat: Return of Down Payment Due to War – part I | 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 plaintiffs (=pl) ordered catering services by the defendant (=def) for Shabbat Sheva Berachot (=SSB) of their son, after the wedding that was to take place on Oct. 9, 2023. A party planner (=pp) found and did most of the interaction between def and pl, but pl paid def directly a down payment of 7,537 NIS. Because of the war, the wedding was delayed. Pl cancelled def’s order quickly through pp and demanded a refund of the down payment. Def agreed to give a credit of 7,500 NIS, but only if pl would hire def for an event that costs 23,000 NIS or above. Due to the number of missiles sent at the region where SSB was to have taken place, SSB was moved to Jerusalem, at a hotel that did not allow outside catering. Pl tried to get a smaller credit for a smaller event, but def said that smaller events are not profitable. Pl points out that all the other service providers gave a full refund, but def responded that the down payment covers the supplies that he already bought and/or prepared and that pl had told him to give the food to soldiers, which he did. [We will deal with claims in installments.] Def claims that pl have no right to sue him, as he interacted only with pp, who was also responsible to make sure that def got paid. Therefore, if pl wants to sue, they should sue pp, and if pp wants to sue to allay her payments, she could sue def.

Ruling: It is not possible for def to preclude pl from suing him for a few reasons. Firstly, pl paid def directly, not through pp, and def sent the document enabling pl to use the credit directly to pl. This suffices to make it clear that pl has a direct financial relationship with def, not just that there are separate def-pp and pl-pp relationships.

Furthermore, pp acted as a shaliach (agent) of pl. In that case, the actions that pp took are treated as if they were done by pl, so that, again, the financial relationship is primarily between pl and def. The fact that pp took responsibility for payment if pl would not pay does not change this outlook. It just means that in addition to being an agent, she was also an areiva (a guarantor), which does not make pl less connected to def.

If there were a need, there is another construct through which to justify pl’s demand to receive payment from def. There is a Talmudic concept called shibuda d’Rabbi Natan (see Ketubot 19a). According to this concept, if Levi owes money to Shimon and Shimon owes money to Reuven, then Reuven can choose to receive payment from Levi instead of Shimon. Therefore, even if the obligation goes through pp, pl would still be able to demand the money from def. The gemara (ibid. 110a) uses a parable to explain that it is unnecessary to have two different payments, if one payment from Levi to Reuven can suffice to settle all the debts.

Therefore, for multiple reasons, pl has full standing to sue def.