Before dying, a sick man left the following will: “... I hereby command and transfer all of my property including money in bank accounts and future rights ... I give from today and one moment before my death to Yeshiva X.” The natural inheritors questioned the will’s validity.
A man wrote a will leaving some money to his daughters and granddaughters and the rest to tzedakah (but none to his sons). The will was left by his lawyer, who was the only person who knew it existed. The halachic inheritors questioned its validity.
The defendant (=def), an organization in Sderot, engaged the plaintiff (=pl), a local band, to play at a Yom Ha’atzmaut celebration. Pl canceled a performance planned for that night primarily because def’s celebration would add to its local exposure. Subsequently, an important institution decided to join the Sderot celebrations and bring a band with them for free. Def totally canceled pl’s engagement, including pl’s request to appear briefly. Pl is suing for the 5,000 shekel agreed upon fee plus damages of the lost publicity.
The plaintiff (=pl) has been requested to do chalitza for his sister-in-law (=def), after her husband died without children. Pl agrees to do chalitza only if def agrees to transfer to him property that is registered in her name in the Tabu (Land Registry). According to pl, his now deceased brother had requested that, in order to ensure def’s rights to the apartment that was part of an inheritance to the two brothers, pl should transfer his rights to it as registered in the Tabu to def. Pl says that he agreed on the condition that def not remarry, which she now wants to do. Therefore, he demands the property back. Def denies ever making a commitment not to remarry.
The defendant (=def) is a yishuv which hired the plaintiff (=pl) to take care of the lighting and sound systems for an event for 7,500 shekels. Both systems malfunctioned at the event. There are mutual complaints by the sides as to whose equipment and/or mistakes were the crucial factors that caused the problems. Despite sending an expert witness to evaluate the situation, beit din cannot determine who is to blame for which problem, but there were problems in the information that def provided pl that could result in sound problems. Does def have to pay in full for incomplete results?
The plaintiff (=pl) worked for two years as a teacher in a yeshiva day school (=def). Near year’s end, def’s principal sent termination notices to all of the non-tenured staff. However, he allegedly (def denies it) orally assured pl that he would be rehired. During the summer break, the principle told pl that he was fired. All agree that pl is a successful, dedicated teacher. However, he does not conform to the principal’s educational philosophy. Pl demands that he be reinstated and if not that he be paid a year’s salary and severance pay.
The defendant (=def) is an organization that arranges Shabbat hospitality. They secured a room for a family in a yeshiva dorm room, in which a student had a personal refrigerator, without his knowledge. After Shabbat, pl found the refrigerator to be broken. A technician says the compressor was ruined. Pl is suing def who is not aware what happened to the refrigerator, instead of suing the family who used, dirtied and perhaps knows what happened to it because he does not want to bother with the family. Def is willing to pay if beit din says that the family is responsible to pay for the damages.
The defendant (def) is a student at a college for photography (pl). Pl lends its students photographic equipment to prepare projects. When def was trying to put a camera on its stand (also provided by pl), the camera fell down and broke. While pl assumes that def was negligent, def says that the stand was faulty. Pl has a security deposit from def which it can use for payment (and is thus muchzak).
The plaintiff (=pl) rented an apartment to the defendant (def) for a year. After the rental period was completed, def stayed on in the apartment and paid on a monthly basis until August, when he left because of Katyusha bombardment of the city. Pl is making a claim on the ending of the rental, which he says should have been extended for a full second year, as the first rental period was for a year. Def says he was justified in leaving the apartment when he did.
The plaintiff (=pl) rented an apartment to the defendant (=def). During the first year, there was a clear rental contract. For the second year, it was originally orally agreed that the rental would end in August, and this was later extended until October, with the possibility of extending it past then. Now def wants to extend it until February but pl informed def on Oct. 25th that he wants him out by the month’s end. Def claims that since pl failed to set a date, it is like the case of an open-ended rental, in regard to which one is not allowed to expel a tenant during the rainy season.
The defendant (def) rented an apartment to the plaintiff (pl) for a year and paid in advance along with a security deposit. In the middle of the year, pl returned the keys to def and left the apartment. In the meantime, def rented out the apartment to someone else. Pl demands the rental money corresponding to the time when the rental was no longer active. Def responds that ending a binding rental requires a kinyan (an act of finalization) which never took place, so that pl remained the renter even when he stopped living there.
The plaintiffs (=pl) rented an apartment from the defendant (=def). Soon before the end of the rental, they traveled abroad for a few weeks and, when they returned, found the apartment flooded by a seriously leaking hot water tank, with the content of several boxes of their belongings damaged. They claim that since the tank belongs to def, he must pay for the damage and add that def accepted upon himself to pay for the damages and only afterward withdrew his commitment. Def claims that he is not responsible for damages that occurred to the apartment while it was rented to pl and that, in any case, the damage occurred because of pl’s extended stay abroad.
The defendant (=def) rented an apartment to the plaintiff (=pl). The contract stated that the rental is not governed by the Law to Protect the Tenant. Yet, the contract includes a clause that gives pl “the option” to extend the rental, “each time for a year,” in which case, def would be allowed to raise the rent by no more than 10%. After a year, pl wanted to continue the rental but def wanted to make that conditional on a 35% increase in the rent due to high inflation, seemingly in contradiction to the clause mentioned above. Def says that he did not understand the clause, which, taken literally, would allow pl to rent indefinitely.
The plaintiff (=pl) rented an apartment to the defendant (=def). When the contract was signed, def gave pl checks for the entire rental period. However, before handing over the contract, pl demanded a security deposit and refused to hand over keys to the apartment, prompting def to back out of the whole agreement. Pl demands that the agreement should stand.
The plaintiff (=pl) invented a game and entered an equal partnership with the defendant (=def) to sell its rights to a company. Def was to market the game to a specific international company, whose CEO is a friend of his. The company ended up rejecting the game. In light of the failure, pl wants to end the partnership and market the game to a smaller Israeli company which requires less marketing for a smaller profit. He is willing to pay def only 20% of profits, as his special value was in regard to that one company. Def responded that he is not responsible for the failure and wants to continue under the original conditions, marketing the product to other large companies.
The litigants are a couple in divorce proceedings. The wife accuses the husband of anti-social behavior, including beatings and public insults. She wants the IDF to present medical files, including a psychiatric evaluation. While the husband allows this, the IDF’s policy precludes this out of a fear that doing so may discourage soldiers from being forthright in their answers to them
The defendant (=def) hired the plaintiff (=pl) and two friends to paint a home he wanted to rent out. Def promised to pay pl 25 shekels an hour and his friends 20. After a few days, pl quit because he found another job, prompting def to hire a different painter for 30 shekels an hour. The delay in finishing the work prevented def from renting out the home when he wanted, resulting in a loss of one month’s rent. Pl says that he would not have taken the job had he known the home was for rent; he demands full pay for the time he worked.
The defendant (=def) had a home, which he expanded so that it became closer to an adjacent quarry, before selling it to the plaintiff (=pl). Pl brought experts who say that the home is now too close to the quarry to live safely and needs major work to be safe, which pl is demanding. Def prefers to void the sale than to pay for professional repairs. He is willing to do the repairs himself.