Beit Midrash
  • Sections
  • Chemdat Yamim
  • P'ninat Mishpat
קטגוריה משנית
undefined
Case: The plaintiff (=pl), a lawyer, worked for and had intricate financial connections with the defendant (=def). There are two loans contracts of pl lending 250,000 NIS to def, which seem basically confirmed by bank transfers. Def made several significant payments to pl, but the sides dispute the nature of several of them, with possibilities including payment of salary. Def also has claims on rental fees at his offices from which pl continued to work after his employment ended, as well as deductions for various grievances about pl’s flawed work.

Ruling: Damage from work #1: Def claims without proof that during pl’s work for him, pl used 6,000 NIS from an escrow account of a client for himself, and that to avoid a scandal, def put his own money back into the account. While pl admits to owing the money to the account, he claims that the money def paid for him was to cover a non-documented loan that pl gave def.
Ruling: The claim of a payment going for an undocumented loan is called sitra’i. Sitra’i on an undocumented payment is believed only in a case where the other person is trying to extract payment. Since here, def is only trying to reduce the money he owes, pl cannot use a sitra’i claim.
Damage from work #2: Def claims that pl did a poor job representing a client who had paid a 26,000 NIS fee, forcing def to return that fee to the client.
Ruling: Since def brought no proof whatsoever, he cannot demand payment from pl. Although def is only trying to pay less money, so that he is ostensibly the muchzak, since the counter claim is unrelated to pl’s claim, they should have been dealt with separately. Therefore, def cannot be credited when he brings no proof, and the claim is rejected.
Damage from work #3: Def claims that he expects that pl’s negligence at work will cause suits by clients against def and demands compensation in advance.
Ruling: Without getting into a decision as to under what circumstances pl could be held responsible for such a suit, as long as the suits have not yet taken place, there is no damage for pl to pay now, and therefore this claim is rejected.
Rent: Def claims that after pl finished his stint working as a member’s of def’s law practice, he continued working there physically for approximately 14 months, and that they agreed that pl would pay 4,000 NIS a month. Pl admits to working for only four months and that in any case, the whole time he paid the rent to the owner of the property as per def’s request. Pl claims that there had been one copy of the rental contract and that it had been given to a lawyer to safeguard, and he gave it to pl.
Ruling: One way or the other, pl wants to reduce the payment of a definite loan through a reduction due to an unproven rental fee. Therefore, we will not reduce the amount due based on this.


Popular Lessons
Popular Lessons
Recent Lessons
Recent Lessons
את המידע הדפסתי באמצעות אתר yeshiva.org.il