Beit Midrash Series Chemdat Yamim

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
Nisan 13 5779 | ---- ---
Condensed from Olat Re’iya, Rav Kook’s Commentary on the Haggada Hallel and Nirtza
Hallel: When the state of life follows a straight path and all stay on the beaten path, then matters are set so that especially enlightening times will enable great spiritual elevation. This is a time at which one can go beyond the framework of normal life, to praise the Name of Hashem with a special power of an abnormally uplifted spirit. However, exceptional uplifting of the soul should not accompany man on a regular basis. This is because the proper balance between the physical and the spiritual is the most precious blessing of peace that man has. For this reason, one who reads the psalms of Hallel every day is considered a blasphemer (Shabbat 118b).
P'ninat Mishpat
Nisan 13 5779 | ---- ---
What Type of Option?
The sellers (sel) decided to provisionally move from the yishuv in which they owned a house to a neighboring one and rented out their house to the renters (ren) for at least a year for 2800 shekels a month. Due to a sensitive family background, it was important for ren to have a mix of flexibility and stability, and so they paid higher rent than usual to include a clause in the contract that gives them “the privilege to be first” regarding a rental extension of 2 years, should they inform sel by a certain time. During the year, sel decided to stay in their new yishuv and buy there, and therefore decided to sell the house to a buyer (buy). Buy’s present rental contract is finishing soon, and they need the house to live in at the end of ren’s year of rental. Ren do not want to leave the house for another two years, which they may do according to their interpretation of the rental contract. Sel are willing to return 300 shekels a month, which, they admit, the rental was overpriced (ren claims that they “overpaid” by 500 shekels a month), but sel say that buy have the right to move in after the year. Sel contradicted themselves regarding if ren’s privilege was only if both sides agreed or if they had an outright option but only if sel rent out, not if sel want to return to live there or sell it to someone who wants to live there.
P'ninat Mishpat
Nisan 6 5779 | ---- ---
Worker’s Benefits
The plaintiff (=pl) planned to buy an apartment in the project being built by a construction company (=def). The municipal planning board approved six apartments, but def decided to break each one into two, which concerned pl. Pl signed a preliminary contract with def, which included a 12,000 shekel down payment to show seriousness and called for the sides to reach agreement on a full contract. Months after the down payment and before signing a full contract, pl decided not to buy the apartment. He is demanding return of the down payment.
P'ninat Mishpat
Adar II 28 5779 | ---- ---
Damages of Delay in Home Construction – part II
The plaintiff (=pl) bought from the defendant (=def), a real estate developer, an apartment “on paper.” Their contract set, among other things, a date for receiving a completed apartment. Def missed the date by a wide margin. [Much of the p’sak deals with compensation for the buyer during the delay]. During August 2014, def sent letters to buyers indicating that the apartments would be ready soon and recommending signing up their children in local schools, which pl did. The apartment was ready only in Oct. 2015. In the meantime, two of pl’s three children went to school in the new city while the family remained where they were (16 kms away). Pl demands compensation for the need to buy a second car and the price of transportation. Def argues that such damages are too indirect to obligate, that many of the claimed expenses are exaggerated, and that the legal obligations to compensate a buyer for delays at a high rate for rental is meant to cover side expenses such as these.
P'ninat Mishpat
Adar II 21 5779 | ---- ---
Damages of Delay in Home Construction – part I
P'ninat Mishpat
Adar II 13 5779 | ---- ---
Sharing the Expansion Area
P'ninat Mishpat
Adar II 7 5779 | ---- ---
Complicated Employment Agreement – part II
P'ninat Mishpat