Yeshiva
Beit Midrash
- Sections
- Chemdat Yamim
- P'ninat Mishpat
Ruling: While def never signed the contract obligating themselves to pay even if they take their son out, prn sent the mother a WhatsApp asking if they were sending their son and had just not gotten around to signing the contract, and she responded positively. Whether they saw the contract, as prn claims, or were just aware there was one (see Aruch Hashulchan, Choshen Mishpat 45:5), their agreeing to send their son is an acceptance of the established terms. Normally, one needs to pay his son’s educator until year’s end. Although def claim the minhag is that if the child stops going to the educator/school, the parents can stop paying, the fact that pl demonstrated that the situation in this small school is different would make such a minhag, if it exists, irrelevant to this case.
Beit din rejects the claim of mechila by prn. Beit din accepts prn’s testimony that his authority is only in the educational realm, not the financial. Therefore, he could do no more than recommend to pl to relieve def of payment. (Def admitted to not knowing if prn had authority.)
The main question is whether def had grounds to decide that their son could not continue at the school. While beit din understands that pl and/or the school made mistakes in dealing with the disciplinary matter, there was no proof or strong claim of grievous actions. Prn spoke to classmates about the violence that occurred, but most of the students witnessed the event, and even according to def’s description, prn was correct to urge avoiding violence. In addition, there is no evidence that def’s son would have found a hostile environment at the school. Since def also made mistakes in dealing with the situation and did not return their son on a trial basis, they did not demonstrate that their dissatisfaction with the school reached the level that the school broke its contractual obligation.
Therefore, def must pay the remaining tuition. However, since the sides agreed to not exhaust the testimonies, def can reduce payment by 500 NIS as a compromise to reflect the small chance further testimony would have vindicated them. Because pl essentially was correct in its claim, def’s counterclaims are not feasible.
P'ninat Mishpat (834)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
835 - P'ninat Mishpat: Undoing a Problematic Partnership – part III
836 - P'ninat Mishpat: Tuition Payment after Withdrawing Student
837 - P'ninat Mishpat: To Whom Do the Payments Go? – part I
Load More
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
Igrot Hare’aya Departure of an Uncle to Eretz Yisrael
Igrot Hare’aya – Letters of Rav Kook: Vol. I, #1 , p. 1-2 – part II
P'ninat Mishpat Repercussions of a Sale That Turned Out Not Happening – part II
(based on ruling 83045 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
P'ninat Mishpat Repercussions of a Sale that Turned Out Not Happening – part III
(based on ruling 83045 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
Igrot Hare’aya Trying to Arrange Purchase of Land in Eretz Yisrael
#222 Date and Place: 2 Elul 5669 (1909), Rechovot
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Late and Flawed Apartment
based on ruling 82174 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
P'ninat Mishpat P'ninat Mishpat: Realtor’s Fee on Large Commercial Building – part I
(based on ruling 85031 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
Rabbis in Midrash
Lessons
fast navigation
Hosha'ana Rabba FLYDUBAI & HOSHANA RABBA- ANI VAHU HOSHIA NA- I & HIM SAVE US
"Ani vaHu Hoshia Na", "I and Him, Save Us". We don't just pray to Him, but we also pray to and for ourselves that we should emulate and educate our children to have that instinctive altruism with which He created the world. President Trump seemed amused about Yaniv Hayon, our PLUMBER who confidently worked with G-d like Superman (he learned from a pilot on a TV show!) to save 174 lives on the Dubai hijacking, but we in Israel are totally accustomed already 78 years to our plumbers, teachers, garbage-men, rabbis, farmers & doctors being Hashem's shlichim! This is what Zionism is about.
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)
