P'ninat Mishpat: Problematic Lights? | Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Beit Midrash

Beit Midrash

Sections
Chemdat Yamim
P'ninat Mishpat

קטגוריה משנית

Female Lesson Parashat Hashavua Series'Library Piskei Din (Hebrew)Test Yourself Shorts Area

Case: The defendant (=def), a contractor, hired the plaintiff (=pl) as a subcontractor for extensive electrical work, including for lighting in a shul. Beit din obligated def to pay 98,433 NIS for the work he did. Pl also sued for 40,435 NIS for having to redo the lighting that was ruined because birds that were able to freely get into the building during the building process, ruined much of the lighting apparatus. Beit din obligated def to pay most of the claim even though there was not an agreement in advance on it. Def complains that upon inspecting the second installment, he saw that the fixtures were not properly protected, so that one must assume that the same was true the first time, which explains why the birds were able to ruin them and makes pl responsible for it. Def also rejects the report of beit din’s expert because he did not see in person the work pl did. Pl responded that since the ruling being appealed is not on the first installation but on the second one, def can only make these claims in a new adjudication. Def also complains that the price of the second installment was determined by comparison to the price agreed for the first one, which is illogical because they were done in different ways. Def also complains about the fact that several lights are flickering, so that he should not be paying pl for them.

Ruling: It was a wise practical move by beit din’s expert to use the pricing from a previous stage of work for new but very similar work. It helps reduce dispute and fees of the expert, and it is fair as long as the expert makes adjustments to deal with the differences. Therefore, in this regard, we reject the appeal on beit din’s ruling that relied on it.
Despite def’s claims, he did not bring corroborative evidence that the second installation of lights was not according to specifications. In order to win an appeal, one has to bring proof, of which def brought none. Even if the second job was missing some elements, since the second job provided more value than was originally called for, def cannot benefit from the work and not pay for it. If def believes he has proof that the first installment was faulty and caused damage, he can open a new claim.
Even if def is correct that several lights are flickering, he cannot receive a reduction on the amount due for that. Pl is correct that since more time has gone by than the period of guarantee, flickering at this point is no longer pl’s responsibility.
The complaints against the expert, who was hired with the approval of both sides, are to be rejected. True, if the expert would have seen the lighting fixtures in person, instead of seeing pictures of them and specifications, it might have been preferable. However, the circumstances made it difficult. Since def knew the expert would not do so and he did not object when it would have been appropriate, he cannot raise an objection now.
In summary, all of the complaints of the appeal are rejected, and the ruling stands.