- Sections
- P'ninat Mishpat
The Torah study is dedicated in the memory of
Yossef ben Simcha
Seller’s Responsibility after the Sale
A Seller’s Responsibility for the Deterioration of the Product After the Sale, based on Halacha Psuka, vol. 49- A Condensation of a Psak by the Beit Din Mishpat V’Halacha B’Yisrael.
Case: The plaintiff (=pl) sold the defendant (=def) a commercial shipment of dates. After the sale, def asked pl how to store them. The dates became wormy before def was able to sell them, and he refuses to pay pl for them.
Ruling: Ability to void a sale: One can void a sale if the root problem existed in a hidden form prior to the sale, e.g. an animal was treif (Chulin 50b). In that case, if we do not know if the treifa occurred before or after the sale, the one who wants to extract money must bring proof (ibid.). The Shulchan Aruch (CM 232:11) rules that even if the buyer did not yet pay, he must do so unless he brings proof the blemish had already existed. Since the blemish was found in the buyer’s auspices, this is where we attribute it to have arisen. On the other hand, the Shulchan Aruch (ibid.:16), as the S’ma (232:34) understands him, says that if one bought cheese, which turned out after three days to be spoiled, we do not make him pay if he did not already do so. The distinction is that it is common for cheese to be predisposed to spoilage (ibid.). We cannot apply the latter logic to our case because the distinction is not clearly accepted and because in this case, there is no claim that the worming already began.
Responsibility for bad advice: Although pl and def disagree as to what advice pl gave, an expert said that even the advice pl claimed to give was faulty. The gemara (Bava Kama 99b) says that a non-expert who gives bad advice regarding accepting coins that another relies upon is obligated to pay. Although pl is not an expert, it is, for two reasons, difficult to obligate him. First, the semi-direct damage of giving bad advice obligates payment (as garmi) when the damage is basically immediate and certain. In this case, an expert determined that had def sold the dates within a reasonable amount of time, they probably would not have developed worms despite the advice.
Furthermore, the gemara (ibid. 100a) says that only if the advice’s recipient told its source that he was going to rely upon it does he pay. Although there is a dispute how explicit one has to be (see Shulchan Aruch, CM 306:6), in our case it is was clear enough that def was relying upon pl. However, def did not prove that he actually followed pl’s instructions. If def anyway did what he wanted, the damage would have occurred even if pl would have given correct instructions. Pl may even have stored the dates in a worse manner than pl instructed, thereby causing the damage.
Therefore, according to the strict law def must pay the full amount. However, since pl signed the arbitration agreement that allows compromise to be included, beit din gave some weight to the element of indirect damage that pl apparently caused and reduced the sum that def had to pay.
Ruling: Ability to void a sale: One can void a sale if the root problem existed in a hidden form prior to the sale, e.g. an animal was treif (Chulin 50b). In that case, if we do not know if the treifa occurred before or after the sale, the one who wants to extract money must bring proof (ibid.). The Shulchan Aruch (CM 232:11) rules that even if the buyer did not yet pay, he must do so unless he brings proof the blemish had already existed. Since the blemish was found in the buyer’s auspices, this is where we attribute it to have arisen. On the other hand, the Shulchan Aruch (ibid.:16), as the S’ma (232:34) understands him, says that if one bought cheese, which turned out after three days to be spoiled, we do not make him pay if he did not already do so. The distinction is that it is common for cheese to be predisposed to spoilage (ibid.). We cannot apply the latter logic to our case because the distinction is not clearly accepted and because in this case, there is no claim that the worming already began.
Responsibility for bad advice: Although pl and def disagree as to what advice pl gave, an expert said that even the advice pl claimed to give was faulty. The gemara (Bava Kama 99b) says that a non-expert who gives bad advice regarding accepting coins that another relies upon is obligated to pay. Although pl is not an expert, it is, for two reasons, difficult to obligate him. First, the semi-direct damage of giving bad advice obligates payment (as garmi) when the damage is basically immediate and certain. In this case, an expert determined that had def sold the dates within a reasonable amount of time, they probably would not have developed worms despite the advice.
Furthermore, the gemara (ibid. 100a) says that only if the advice’s recipient told its source that he was going to rely upon it does he pay. Although there is a dispute how explicit one has to be (see Shulchan Aruch, CM 306:6), in our case it is was clear enough that def was relying upon pl. However, def did not prove that he actually followed pl’s instructions. If def anyway did what he wanted, the damage would have occurred even if pl would have given correct instructions. Pl may even have stored the dates in a worse manner than pl instructed, thereby causing the damage.
Therefore, according to the strict law def must pay the full amount. However, since pl signed the arbitration agreement that allows compromise to be included, beit din gave some weight to the element of indirect damage that pl apparently caused and reduced the sum that def had to pay.

P'ninat Mishpat (687)
Various Rabbis
62 - One Who Tripped in a Store
63 - Seller’s Responsibility after the Sale
64 - Order for Services
Load More

Payments after a Gradual End of Employment
(Based on ruling 82024 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Nissan 5783

A Man Who Died Without Known Inheritors
Rabbi Yosef Goldberg | Monday, 24 Cheshvan 5768

A Worker Paying for a Stolen Car – part I
based on ruling 80088 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Cheshvan 4 5782

Hallel and Nirtza
Condensed from Olat Re’iya, Rav Kook’s Commentary on the Haggada
Various Rabbis | Nisan 13 5779

Various Rabbis
Various Rabbis including those of of Yeshivat Bet El, such as Rabbi Chaim Katz, Rabbi Binyamin Bamberger and Rabbi Yitzchak Greenblat and others.

Compensation for Withheld Salary
5771

“By their Families and the Household of their Fathers”
2 Sivan 5770

Support for Sons Not Living With Their Father
5770

Buying Looted Seforim from the Slovakians
Iyar 21 5775

Is Your Kesubah Kosher?
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff | 5769
Days on Which Tachanun Is Not Recited
Chapter Twenty One-Part Three
Rabbi Eliezer Melamed | 5775

The Measure Of Long Life
Rabbi Stewart Weiss | Elul 12 5775

How Does a Person Convert to Judaism?
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff

Rav Kook on the Importance of the Flag
Rabbi Ari Shvat | 27 Iyar 5783

Nasso: How the Rambam Views Nazirism
5 Sivan 5783

Counting from Beginning to End
Rabbi Haggai Lundin | Iyar 5783
