P'ninat Mishpat: Did Any Furniture Go to the Buyer? – 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 plaintiff (=pl) sold her apartment to the defendants (=def), who had previously rented the apartment from her. Beit din solved most of the disagreements between the sides about the sale by means of compromise, except for the following. Def says that based on agreement and on common practice in their city, the furniture of the small rental unit is sold along with the apartment. Each side has ancillary monetary claims regarding the furniture if it belongs to pl. Pl demands payment for def’s use of that furniture until now. Def, who claims not to have used the furniture, says that since pl is asking for payment for what happened in the meantime, they will demand payment for storing the furniture during this time. While the contract writes that furniture that is not permanently connected to the apartment goes back to pl, def claim that the built-in oven is included. Pl also is suing def for allowing pl’s divorcee to take books that he had no right to from the apartment.

Ruling: Furniture in rental unit: The contract states that all removable furniture is not being sold, and this should include those in the rental unit. It is true that during negotiations for the sale, pl had offered the furniture in the rental unit, but it is not uncommon for certain offers to be made during negotiations and not carry over to the final sale. On the other hand, the Rama (Choshen Mishpat 207:1) says that when there is an oral understanding, followed by a contract that leaves out the matter, the understanding is valid. However, that is when the contract leaves the matter out, whereas here it says that all the furniture goes to pl. We have a major rule that a party to a contract cannot claim that he did not notice a clause (Shulchan Aruch, CM 45:3, based on the Rashba). Additionally, this contract states that it uproots any previous agreement. Although def claim that rental units have different practices in the matter than the rest of the apartment, there is no other agreement that deals with the unit, and therefore the clauses apply to the whole apartment. If the rental unit is not included, then there is no contract for it, and based on the practice in Israel, the sale cannot be valid for real estate without a contract (see Rambam, Mechira 1:4). Therefore, even if there were a local minhag to include the furniture of the rental unit in the sale, it will not be enough to counteract that which we consider explicit in the contract.
Use and storage of the rental unit furniture: Beit din will not consider these claims. In the compromise agreement the sides accepted, it lists which issues remain open and which are settled by the compromise. This is one of the matters that is included in the compromise settlement.
Next time we will finish up our treatment of the ruling.