P'ninat Mishpat: Sharing in Plumbing Expenses – part II | 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

Case: The plaintiff (=pl) and the defendant (=def) own neighboring apartments in a building in which all the owners on one wing expanded their apartments. As a result of pl’s renovations, pl’s contractor changed the pipes draining the wing’s waste, and they now service only pl and def. Ten years later, pl reported to def that there was a major clog and then fixed it with plumber A for 15,500 NIS. Weeks later, pl paid plumber B to do additional work for 14,000 NIS. Pl asked def to pay half of the repairs’ cost. Def refuses to pay at least the great majority of the expense for several complementary reasons: 1. The problem stemmed from mistakes in the redone piping. 2. Research revealed that plumber A took an unreasonable amount of money, and the second repair was not needed. 3. Pl told def that plumbing needed to be done, but def had no idea it would cost so much. 4. Other people in the building share some of the pipes and should also be charged. 5. The receipts pl presented contain irregularities.

Ruling: [Last time we saw the rationale for the grounds for def’s obligation and the need for compromise. Now we analyze the strength of various claims to arrive at a compromise.]
First, we note that each side miscalculated in their handling of the situation. Pl should have updated def as soon as it became apparent that the repairs would be much more costly than most plumbing repairs. On the other hand, if def did not trust pl’s handling of the situation, they should have requested pl to discuss the matter with them before committing to pay the plumbers. It is problematic for def to give apparent carte blanche in the first place and then be particular after the fact.
We now relate to def’s specific claims, brought above. 1) Problems stem from faulty construction – This is a reasonable possibility, but one which was not proven. It is grounds for reducing def’s obligation. 2. The plumbers were flawed – Since there is a clear need to share in the expenses, claims that the expenses were unnecessary need to be proved. Although it is somewhat telling that pl felt a need to fight to (successfully) reduce plumber A’s charges, it is likely that after doing so, the price was not very inflated. Therefore, there are only minimal grounds for reduction here. 3. Def was not informed of high price – On the one hand, this is a correct claim. However, it is relevant only to the extent that there are valid complaints with what was done. 4. Others should also pay – This is was not substantiated, and therefore it has little impact. 5. Problematic receipts – Since def did not substantiate the problems but made a general statement, and since def admitted to generally having high regard for pl, it seems disingenuous to raise the possibility that pl forged the details of the receipts or the like. Therefore, this has little to no impact.
Based on factoring in all of the above, beit din obligated def to pay 60% of half of the expenses, i.e., 8,850 NIS.