A Third Dayan Who Was a Relative

Reuven and Shimon had a dispute, and they decided to adjudicate by each picking a judge (Levi and Yehuda), with the stipulation that they could rule based on din (strict law) or peshara (compromise). They agreed (in writing, with a kinyan for finalization) that if the two could not agree on a ruling/settlement, they could pick a third of their choice (“whoever it might be”) to enable a decision. Levi and Yehuda indeed did not agree. They chose Dan according to the above instructions. After a ruling was rendered, Reuven objected, with the claim that he found out that Dan is Shimon’s relative, to which he would not have agreed. Shimon claims that since Dan was accepted and since the instructions were that it could be anyone, this includes even relatives.

Passively Taking from Another’s Franchise

Reuven bought a franchise from the sar (the ruling local nobleman) to sell alcoholic beverages, on condition that the sar would forbid his constituents from buying from anyone else, which he did. Shimon bought a franchise from a neighboring sar. Non-Jewish villagers from Reuven’s region have approached Shimon about buying from him, which hurts Reuven’s investment/livelihood. May Shimon sell to them?

An Agent who Gave the Document to the Wrong Person

Late Demand of Expenses

A Deal Arranged Through a Middleman

based on Halacha Psuka, vol. 50- A Condensation of a Psak by the Beit Din Gazit of S’derot.

Payment for Indirect Damage

Payment for Indirect Damage When the Plaintiff Could Have Demanded More; from Halacha Psuka, vol. 50- a condensation of a psak by the Ma’aleh Adumim Beit Din.

Order for Services

Order for Services That Were Necessary Only Partially; based on Halacha Psuka, vol. 49- A Condensation of a Psak by the Beit Din Gazit of S’derot.

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.

One Who Tripped in a Store

Damage Payment for One Who Tripped in a Store , A Condensation of a P’sak by Beit Din Gazit of Tzefat.

An Abrupt End to a Rental

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.