YeshivaThe torah world Gateway
Beit MidrashAsk the RabbiCalendarWikiDedications
Thursday 6 Tishrei 5787

Dedicate the study in the website

Dedicate

YeshivaThe torah world Gateway
 Beit Midrash

Beit Midrash
  • Sections
  • Chemdat Yamim
  • P'ninat Mishpat
קטגוריה משנית
undefined
25
Shorts AreaFemale LessonParashat HashavuaSeries'LibraryPiskei Din (Hebrew)Test Yourself
Case: The defendants (=def) hired the plaintiff (=pl) to renovate their home for 305,000 NIS, agreeing to complete the job by August 2022. During the project, def requested additions and changes. Relations deteriorated over alleged delays, unaddressed defects, scheduling, and billing discrepancies. The sides paused to take account of their mutual contractual obligations, which resulted in pl claiming they deserved an additional 83,000 NIS, beyond the 323,000 NIS paid, due to the additions. Def claimed they overpaid by 27,000 NIS. With def refusing to pay more and pl therefore refusing to continue work, including repairing imperfections, def fired pl. The central issue in this partial ruling is whether def was legally justified in dismissing pl. Ruling: Lateness of work schedule; work foreman’s absences; waste removal: Pl admits that the work schedule was late, but explains that def’s additions and changes and his pressuring to start working without the schedule were major contributing factors. Pl admits that the foreman was not always present, but when he was not, senior workers often came, and the foreman usually came at the end of the day to appraise progress. Pl claims that while his equipment remained on the site, garbage was removed. Beit din posits that while one should keep all contractual pledges, failure or delay is not grounds for termination without warning in matters that are not at the heart of the work (see Tosafot, Kiddushin 49b regarding conditions of different levels of importance). [Without going into all the details] the deficiencies discussed do not reach the bar for termination. Lateness in workday: Def claims that pl started the workday after the time he pledged, and the contract allows def to cancel the contract if he starts late. Beit din agrees with pl’s reading of the contract that this fundamental condition refers to starting the work at a later date than spelled out. Inconsistent starting times of each day’s work are rarely a fundamental matter. Changing rules of engagement: Def claims that they worked out and signed an agreement with pl’s foreman for him to fix flaws irrespective of def’s payment for the next stage of work, until pl stopped him, which was a breach of contract. However, beit din accepts pl’s claim that the foreman, who is a worker for pl, does not have the authority to obligate pl in arrangements that are beyond the original agreement. Pl did not finish the work by the time listed in the contract: Def points out that pl was three months late; there was a grace period of only one month for fixing imperfections. Pl argues that def waived the starting time by two weeks and because he added 25% more work with additions and def’s building inspector delayed progress multiple times, he is not responsible. Beit din concludes that even if pl had some responsibility for the delays, considering how much was caused by def’s side, the delays are not grounds to nullify the agreement. Considering the above, def do not have grounds to fire pl due to cause. Although the contract allows him to remove pl with ten days’ notice, under these circumstances, calculation of the amount due to pl for work done is arrived at in a more favorable way for pl than if there was cause for firing.
P'ninat Mishpat (832)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
859 - Regulation of Land Rights in a Settlement Extension – part V
860 - P'ninat Mishpat: Complaints about Contractor’s Work – part II
861 - P'ninat Mishpat: Realtor’s Fee on Large Commercial Building – part I
Load More
undefined

Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit

  • P'ninat Mishpat: Multiple Agreements and Parties – part IV
    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

    Tevet 5786
  • Trying to Arrange Purchase of Land in Eretz Yisrael
    Igrot Hare’aya

    Trying to Arrange Purchase of Land in Eretz Yisrael

    #222 Date and Place: 2 Elul 5669 (1909), Rechovot

    18 Sivan 5784
  • Halachic Shmita Guide from Eretz Hemdah
    Shmitta

    Halachic Shmita Guide from Eretz Hemdah

    Elul 8 5781
  • Who Breached the Contract? – part IV
    P'ninat Mishpat

    Who Breached the Contract? – part IV

    Based on ruling 81087 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts

    Iyar 20 5783
P'ninat Mishpat
P'ninat Mishpat
Popular Lessons
Popular Lessons
Recent Lessons
Recent Lessons

Rabbis in Midrash

Lessons
fast navigation
  • Rabbi Zalman Baruch Melamed
     Rabbi Zalman Baruch Melamed
  • Rabbi S. Yossef Weitzen
     Rabbi S. Yossef Weitzen
  • Rabbi Uri Sharki
     Rabbi Uri Sharki
  • Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu Zt"l
     Rabbi Mordechai Eliyahu Zt"l
  • Rabbi Chaim Avihau Schwartz
     Rabbi Chaim Avihau Schwartz
  • Rabbi Dov Lior
     Rabbi Dov Lior
  • Rabbi Chaim Drukman
     Rabbi Chaim Drukman
  • Rabbi Ovadia Yosef Shilt"a
     Rabbi Ovadia Yosef Shilt"a
  • Rabbi Uzi Kalchaim zt"l
     Rabbi Uzi Kalchaim zt"l
  • Rabbi Ya'akov Shapira
     Rabbi Ya'akov Shapira
עוד Lessons
Personal area

Join now to watch your latest lessons and questions and continue watching series' of lessons right from the time you left them.

את המידע הדפסתי באמצעות אתר yeshiva.org.il