Beit Midrash Series Chemdat Yamim

P'ninat Mishpat

Elul 8 5779 | ---- ---
Authority of the Beit Din to Hear Arguably Late Appeal
Beit din rendered a partial ruling on some of the matters in disagreement. More than 30 days after the partial ruling, but before the end of adjudication, the defendant (=def) claimed to have found proof that the plaintiff (=pl) deceived beit din in a way that was responsible for the ruling. Def claims that whenever proof is brought, it should be accepted. Pl argues that according to this beit din’s rules, one only has 30 days, which have passed.
P'ninat Mishpat
Elul 2 5779 | ---- ---
Was the Site Created Fast Enough?
P'ninat Mishpat
Av 26 5779 | ---- ---
Canceling Checks Found by a Third Party
P'ninat Mishpat
Av 19 5779 | ---- ---
Aftermath of a Rental that Almost Was
P'ninat Mishpat
Av 12 5779 | ---- ---
Dividing Government Funding – part II
P'ninat Mishpat
Av 3 5779 | ---- ---
Dividing Government Funding
P'ninat Mishpat
Tamuz 26 5779 | ---- ---
A Disappointing Partnership – part III
P'ninat Mishpat
Tamuz 18 5779 | ---- ---
A Disappointing Partnership – part II
P'ninat Mishpat
Tamuz 14 5779 | ---- ---
A Disappointing Partnership – part I
P'ninat Mishpat
Tamuz 5 5779 | ---- ---
Additional Pay for Additional Work?
P'ninat Mishpat
Sivan 27 5779 | ---- ---
Firing a Contractor – part V
P'ninat Mishpat
Sivan 21 5779 | ---- ---
Rabbinical Courts Firing a Contractor – part IV
P'ninat Mishpat
Sivan 18 5779 | ---- ---
Firing a Contractor – part III
Plaintiff 2 (=pl2) was the contractor for major renovations of the defendant’s (=def) home; plaintiff 1 (=pl1) was the supervisor. Pl2 was well behind schedule and was fired by def. [Over the last two installments, we presented that def had the right to fire pl2 and determined how to appraise the amount pl2 should receive for the work already done. We continue with other elements.] Def claims around 25,000 shekels for various damages done by pl2 and his subcontractors and workers. Pl2 claims that he should not be responsible for the damage done by others.
P'ninat Mishpat
Sivan 10 5779 | ---- ---
P'ninat Mishpat: Firing a Contractor – part II
Plaintiff 2 (=pl2) was the contractor for major renovations of the defendant’s (=def) home; plaintiff 1 (=pl1) was the supervisor. The contract stated that pl2 would finish the job in 120 work days within approximately six months. After over eight months, with the job not close to complete, def fired them, with the claim that pl2 was working only sporadically because he took on another job. Pl2 claims that he took the other job only after def fell behind in payments and that he had already worked 140 days because def made additions to the original plans. Pl2 claims that def fired them when she received a bill for the additional work. Def says that she wrote a letter to fire them before she received that bill, that she paid less than spelled out because she bought some of the materials that pl2 was required to, and because the work was behind schedule. She claims that pl1 approved the amount she paid and that pl2 did not protest.
P'ninat Mishpat
Iyar 29 5779 | ---- ---
Firing a Contractor – part I
Plaintiff 2 (=pl2) was the contractor for major renovations of the defendant’s (=def) home; plaintiff 1 (=pl1) was the supervisor. The contract stated that pl2 would finish the job in 120 work days within approximately six months. After over eight months, with the job not close to complete, def fired them, with the claim that pl2 was working only sporadically because he took on another job. Pl2 claims that he took the other job only after def fell behind in payments and that he had already worked 140 days because def made additions to the original plans. Pl2 claims that def fired them when she received a bill for the additional work. Def says that she wrote a letter to fire them before she received that bill, that she paid less than spelled out because she bought some of the materials that pl2 was required to, and because the work was behind schedule. She claims that pl1 approved the amount she paid and that pl2 did not protest.
P'ninat Mishpat
---- ---
Waiving Workers’ Benefits
The plaintiff (=pl) served as a rosh kollel for the defendant (=def), an organization. For several years, def paid pl with a kollel stipend rather than a worker’s salary with a wage stub and social benefits. Then, def started paying pl, based on pl’s request, as a worker. Pl, who quit a year later, now demands to have his social benefits rights restored retroactively. Def argues that pl was indeed a kollel student, who received a higher than normal stipend because he also did some teaching. Def also argues that pl agreed to the conditions, which are totally standard for roshei kollel in Israel.
P'ninat Mishpat
Iyar 18 5779 | ---- ---
Dissolution of Real Estate Joint Ownership after Divorce
The plaintiff (=pl) and the defendant (=def) are in the midst of divorce proceedings (their short marriage was a second for each). Pl has lived in her yishuv (=yi) for 20 years, as do a few of her children. Pl and def bought together a home under construction, which required a bar reshut (equivalent to ownership) from the Jewish Agency Settlement Department. The apartment is almost finished, and, to this date, pl has paid more than half of the costs. Pl wants to be recognized as the owner (she will return his payments) because they received rights to build only because of her seniority and because the degree to which def was late in paying his part shows that they both realized that it was hers. Alternatively, she wants to buy out def’s rights because they are getting divorced and she has a much deeper connection to yi. Def wants to buy pl’s part in the house and rent it out, and, if not, he wants to wait until construction is complete before selling his part. He adds that pl received the bar reshut only because she was married at the time.
P'ninat Mishpat
Iyar 11 5779 | ---- ---
Poor Job of Setting Up an Internet Site? – part II
An NPO (=pl) hired the defendant (=def) to help set up an internet site for fundraising use. Def identified three stages in developing the site, which was the basis for a contract to pay def for the first stage, including a functional specification document and other groundwork. During that time, they would negotiate the terms for work on the other stages. Def’s salary was 12,000 shekel plus 4% of revenue raised for a certain time. After presenting the functional specification, def helped pl choose a site developing software company (=SC) to do the next stage and negotiated their fee. Pl decided to hire a programmer (=RP) to replace def. RP reported to pl that def was responsible for many flaws in the planning, and pl also held def responsible for difficulties working with SC, including that SC was promised too much pay and was not sufficiently held responsible. Pl stopped paying def the promised percentage of profits and demanded a return of some of the money already paid. Def is countersuing with the claim that pl did not do enough to maximize profits, and he only agreed to a low salary because he was promised a percentage of the income. The sides also dispute if the 4% is of the revenue produced specifically through the site, or whether it is for all of pl’s revenues during the period.
P'ninat Mishpat
Iyar 4 5779 | ---- ---
Poor Job of Setting Up an Internet Site? – part I
An NPO (=pl) hired the defendant (=def) to help set up an internet site for fundraising use. Def identified three stages in developing the site, which was the basis for a contract to pay def for the first stage, including a functional specification document and other groundwork. During that time, they would negotiate the terms for work on the other stages. Def’s salary was 12,000 shekel plus 4% of revenue raised for a certain time. After presenting the functional specification, def helped pl choose a site developing software company (=SC) to do the next stage and negotiated their fee. Pl decided to hire a programmer (=RP) to replace def. RP reported to pl that def was responsible for many flaws in the planning, and pl also held def responsible for difficulties working with SC, including that SC was promised too much pay and was not sufficiently held responsible. Pl stopped paying def the promised percentage of profits and demands a return of some of the money already paid. Def is countersuing with the claim that pl did not do enough to utilize the opportunity, and he only agreed to a low salary because the percentage of the income was promised to him. The sides also dispute if the 4% is of the revenue produced specifically through the site, or whether it is for all of pl’s revenues during the period.
P'ninat Mishpat
Nisan 27 5779 | ---- ---
Expanding Work and Expanding Pay
The plaintiff (=pl) served as a supervisor of the building of the defendants’ (=def) house, which included inspecting the work going on at the site and also coordinating and taking responsibility for the architect, engineer, contractor, and subcontractors. His fee was 26,000 shekels, and the construction was supposed to be finished by the end of 2015. During the work, pl recommended to def to expand the scope of development and argued (against the other professionals) that they should build supporting walls, at a cost of 200,000 shekels to accomplish this safely. Def accepted pl’s plan. The work dragged out until Oct. 2016. The contract stated that for work that pl will need to do after 2015, he will be paid 260 shekels per visit. Pl says that he has worked 120 hours on matters outside the contract, but is charging for only 50 hours at 260 shekel an hour (13,000 plus VAT). Def argues that it does not make sense that the extra work is more than half of his base salary, that pl did not warn them he would ask for more money, and that his silence implied that the 200,000 shekels for the supporting walls included his fee. They also claim that he is responsible for much of the delay in the project.
P'ninat Mishpat