A Review of the Year’s Piskei Din

Mekach Ta’ut (Misinformed Transaction) and Ona’ah (Mispricing)
A Clause That Negates the Claim of Mekach Ta’ut
Purchase contracts of cars often have a clause where one relinquishes his right to take legal steps in the case of misrepresentation of the object. This clause is not halachically binding.
Mekach Ta’ut When the Buyer Relinquished His Right to Check the Object
A difference of opinions exists if relinquishing the right to check an object before buying also relinquishes the right to claim mekach ta’ut. In any case, if the check is expensive, the failure to have it done is certainly not a reason to prevent the buyer from claiming mekach ta’ut.
Use of the Object After the Blemish Was Discovered

P'ninat Mishpat (704)

Rabbi Yosef Goldberg

add_alert

38 - A Look Back at the Last Year’s Piskei Din

39 - A Review of the Year’s Piskei Din

40 - A Review of the Year’s Piskei Din

Load More

In a case that one buys an object and uncovers a blemish that is grounds for nullifying the sale, if he uses the object after that point, he no longer has the right to undo the sale. However, if the buyer had no choice but to use the object, its use does not indicate a relinquishing of the right to return the object.
The Setting of a Price in Regard to Ona’ah
It is very difficult to arrive at a standard price in regard to determining the existence and degree of mispricing. However, when there is an object that has a catalogue price, it is accepted that this serves as the standard price.

Inheritance and Wills
Giving Power to a Will
Fundamentally, a halachically valid will has to be phrased as a present from the giver and should not be written in the form of inheritance. However, a will that is phrased improperly can still be valid under certain circumstances. For example, when the will has a status of a will of one who is on the verge of death (sh’chiv meirah) or similar circumstances, or when there is no known inheritor of the one who is bequeathing the will is valid.

Rentals
The End of a Rental Period
In a case where the rental is paid for in advance, the nullification of the rental can be accomplished only through an act of kinyan. Therefore, if the renter just leaves the property without an agreement with the landlord, he still must continue to pay rent. Similarly, the death of the renter is not grounds for ending the rental if the rent was paid in advance.
The Burden of Proof
When there is a discrepancy about facts or a doubt on a matter of halacha, when the matter relates to a question resulting from land rental, it is the renter who, as a rule, has to prove his claim. When the question relates to the rental of movable objects, the burden of proof is on the one who is trying to extract the object in question from his counterpart.