YeshivaThe torah world Gateway
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: The Maggid Mishneh (Mechira 15:3) says that if a buyer could have checked and uncovered the blemish in the purchase item and did not do so, he no longer can nullify the sale because of it. Many agree and many disagree with this opinion (see S’ma 232:10; Shut Maharashdam 385). Also, some limit the Maggid Mishneh to cases where the check can be done easily and without charge. Others say that it does not apply when the seller explicitly assured the buyer that the flaw did not exist. Both of these limitations enable pl to claim an erroneous agreement.
On the other hand, the contract says that pl checked all of the pertinent information and found everything to their liking. Although pl claim that since they signed a standard agreement, dictated by def, they should not be bound by it. It is a complicated matter whether we could accept such a claim against what pl signed. But in this case, it is not necessary because the admission of checking everything is stated to apply to everything except what is found in the contract. Since def1’s ownership of the property is a provision of the contract, def1 indeed misled pl, and pl did not admit that they were aware.
In order for pl to collect from def2, owner of def1, there are two hurdles to overcome: 1. the idea that obligations of a corporate entity are paid only from the assets of the entity, not of its owners; 2. the fact that def2 did not agree to sign the arbitration agreement. Regarding #1, the halachic justification for the "corporate veil" is the agreement of the person doing business with it. However, here where the agreement was nullified based on fraud, the corporate veil should not apply. There are reasons according to Israeli law to lift the veil in this case (ed. note – beyond our scope).
Regarding #2, def2 can be obligated as well. Since he is the sole owner of def1 and he was interested in pursuing litigation in this beit din and took part in all of its proceedings, it is incorrect to say that he is not part bound by the litigation. Therefore, if def1 will not have the funds to pay pl, def2 will be liable to pay.
P'ninat Mishpat (834)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
799 - A Non-Contractor in Changing Times – part I
800 - A Non-Contractor in Changing Times – part II
801 - P'ninat Mishpat: Realtor’s Fee on Large Commercial Building – part I
Load More
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Multiple Agreements and Parties – part IV
based on final ruling of 80082 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
P'ninat Mishpat Payment for Not Clearing Warehouse On Time – part II
based on ruling 75076 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
Rabbis in Midrash
Lessons
fast navigation
Moreshet Shaul Hashem Is your Shadow – part I
Based on Siach Shaul, Pirkei Machshava V’Hadracha p. 420 – an address from 1941
P'ninat Mishpat A Non-Contractor in Changing Times – part I
(based on ruling 85128 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
Moreshet Shaul Our King on Rosh Hashana, Our Father on Yom Kippur.
Based on Aroch Siach, p. 221 (Rav Shaul Yisraeli)
P'ninat Mishpat A Non-Contractor in Changing Times – part II
(based on ruling 85128 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
Moreshet Shaul Hashem Is your Shadow – part II
Based on Siach Shaul, Pirkei Machshava V’Hadracha p. 420 – an address from 1941
Parashat Hashavua Happiness for the Right Reasons
[With painful longing, we share these divrei Torah from our co-Rosh Kollel for close to 40 years, Harav Moshe Ehrenreich zt”l.]
