Archive for December, 2009

Claim Against a Public Company

Tuesday, December 29th, 2009

by Rabbi Yehonoson Dovid Hool

Q:

I have a dispute with Orange cellular phone Company. I want to go to the small claims court. I want to know if I have to take them to beis din 1st? I was verbally told that calls to a specific number were free, by an Orange Employee. I signed an electronic sign pad connected to a computer, and never saw nor got any contract. I made lots of calls to this number based on what I was told and I got a bill for close to $300 for calling the number. I told them of the error and they would not speak to me. I requested to go to court and they agreed. Later I got a lawyer’s letter I did not read demanding close to $800. A month later they put liens on my property and got the courts to ratify taking over $1000 from my account. I was told the only recourse is maybe through the small claims court. Do I have to go to Beis Din 1st & who do I file against?

Answer:

Normally one may not go to Court unless one has first summoned the defendant to a Beis Din and he has refused to some.

However, if someone claims against you in a Court you may certainly go to court to defend yourself.

Furthermore, with public companies such as Orange there is virtually no chance that they will agree to an arbitration in Beis Din; indeed more often than not the company rules do not permit such a procedure without the approval of the board of directors. In such circumstances there is no need to apply for permission from Beis Din, and you may go straight to court.

Rav Moshe Shternbuch suggests that just in case, you add to your claim in Court a clause to the effect that “As far as I am concerned I would prefer arbitration in Beis Din.”

Damages Arising from an unfulfilled Commitment

Tuesday, December 29th, 2009

by Rabbi Baruch Rubanowitz

Q:

About a year ago, someone who works at city hall said he could help us get a permit to do some work in our new house. Shortly thereafter, our contractor’s assistant called us and said that he could get us the permit, and that if we went through the other guy rather than through him, he would block it. He also told us he would gather much of the necessary architectural papers and plans since that would be very helpful, we agreed to do it through him.

A few months later he told us he was ready to start work on actually getting the permit and took from us half the payment that we had agreed upon. Now, many months later, he phoned us to tell us that in fact he cannot obtain the permit and we will have to go back to the first man.

Two questions:

1.Since he took half the money, is the contractor’s assistant liable for any damages that we may incur either in getting the permit (e.g., if man #1 now wants to charge us more since by now we have signed on the apartment and are “stuck,” whereas when we spoke to him last year we had not yet finalized the purchase) or if we cannot get the permit at all? For instance, is he responsible for paying us the difference between the cost of a house with the addition and the same house without the addition?

2.If so, since we have a short-term cash crunch, can we take back most of the money we gave him so many months ago or would this nullify his responsibility to us in any way?

Thank you for you time and energy.

Answer:

Generally, issues regarding money cannot be fully presented in a letter (since I cannot ask questions of each party). Often a question regarding money and legal rights presented by one side will yield an inaccurate response, albeit by no fault of the questioner.

Nonetheless, I will try to give you some direction on this issue, as I understand you have a meeting shortly and wish to proceed with as much information as possible.

I wish to emphasize that this is not to be regarded as a psak on this case, but rather a learning session on some points that may be relevant to your case.

When a person offers to act as an agent to secure a deal, he cannot receive the agreed-upon compensation for his work unless the deal is actually closed. If the endeavor fails, he does not receive the agreed-upon fee. A good example of this would be a shadchan. A contractor also falls into this category.

Mordechai (Baba Kama 173) discusses a case in which Reuven asked Shimon to ask Levi, who lives in another city, to marry Reuven’s sister. Levi came but the shidduch did not go through. Shimon claimed his fee on the grounds that he brought Levi to Reuven’s city. The psak was that Shimon couldn’t claim his money unless it was agreed that he would be paid to bring Levi to the city even if the shidduch did not go through.

The Beis Yosef (185 mechudash 2) understands a Teshuva of the Rosh as saying that payment may be required even when a deal doesn’t go through. See Mishpat Shalom 185, which suggests a distinction between cases in which it is common for people to take risks and people may offer an agent money to do work even though they know the outcome is questionable, and cases where people don’t pay unless the job is completed. He also posits (based upon the Machane Efraim) that it could depend who suggested the job. If the contractor proposed that he do a job and was unsuccessful, then he would not receive anything. But if the contractor was asked to do the job and did what he was asked, then he should be paid, even though the deal didn’t go through. These possible factors may play a role in your situation. These factors are not universally agreed upon.

I do not see how the extortionist you were dealing with would be liable in a court of Torah law for any causative damages you may suffer due to his inability to get you the proper permit. If the new agent charges more money for the service, the first agent is not financially responsible. Nor is it his responsibility if you do not get the permit at all and your house is less valuable.

if you can recoup the money that you gave him, i recommend taking whatever you can get. you might be entitled to all of it, but it would be a battle against a muchzak.

B’hatzlacha!

Finding 3 Twenties

Tuesday, December 29th, 2009

by Rabbi Yehonoson Dovid Hool

Q:

A relative of mine found 60 dollars cash (3 twenty dollar bills folded together) on Main street ( a very Jewish area in Queens), on a Friday afternoon. Must she post a sign and if so what exactly should it say?

Answer:

No.

Firstly, Odom memashmesh bekiso kol sha’ah – aperson notices immediately if he loses money, and so by the time the finder found it we can assume that the loser will have noticed it missing and will be meya’esh – will give up hope of getting it back.

Further, there’s only a mitzvah of hashovas aveidoh if the majority of passers-by are Jewish, otherwise the loser will assume that anyone who picks it up will not return it, and will be meya’esh.

Moreover, there is no siman (identifying sign) here – although the notes are folded, if they are merely folded in half as I understand, there is no siman – see Nimukei Yosef Bava Metzia end of daf 11b (dafei haRif) that any tie that can easily become undone is not a siman since the owner will assume it could have become undone by itself and so will not be seen by the finder as a siman. And especially in this case, where the owner knows that they might not even have fallen down together.

So she may keep the money!

Lost Credit Voucher

Tuesday, December 29th, 2009

by Rabbi Yehonoson Dovid Hool

Q:

An educational institute wanted to honour one of their supporters, and so they asked me to purchase a silver dish on their behalf for him, which they paid me for. Subsequently, they decided it wasn’t suitable and they asked me to return it to the store. I did so, and the store gave me in return a voucher for the amount of the dish. I took it hime, and after some time I realised that I must have misplaced it, because I can’t find it anywhere. Am I obliged to pay the institute the value of the voucher?

Answer:

In general, unless you declared at the time that you took the voucher (or before then) that you accept no responsibility for looking after it, you would automatically become a Shomer Chinom, and would be responsible for negligence. Included in negligence is not knowing where you placed it.

Nonetheless, in this case you would not have to pay for the loss, because the voucher has the same status in this respect as documents that have no intrinsic worth other than the obligations stated within. Such documents are excluded from the Halachos of Shomrim, and as such you are not responsible for their loss. Although there are authorities that oblige payment even in such cases if the loss is caused through negligence, the consensus amongst the Poskim is to exonerate the Shomer of any financial obligations, especially if the plaintiff is not holding any money of the Shomer. As such, a Bais Din would not oblige you to pay for the loss even if it came about through your negligence.

Paying a Babysitter on Time

Tuesday, December 29th, 2009

by Rabbi Yehonoson Dovid Hool

Q:

I pay my child’s babysitter at the end of the week, as per our agreement. Is this a kiyum of b’yomo titen scharo?

Rabbi Yehonoson Dovid Hool answered:

It depends. If the day you pay is the last day that she actually works, you have performed the mitzvah. (If the work ends during the day, you must pay before sundown; if it ends at night you must pay before morning.) If, however, you pay a day (or more) after the completion of the work, you have missed out on the mitzvah of a Beyomo.

This applies if this arrangement was agreed at the beginning of the employment – if it was not, and the babysitter requested pay on the day she finished work and you pushed it off to another day, in most cases you would have transgressed the mitzvah of Lo Tallin.

The Unpaid Agent

Tuesday, December 29th, 2009

by Rabbi Baruch Rubanowitz

Q:

I recently bought an apartment. A real estate agent made the initial contact between the contractor and myself but she was never available to help with subsequent issues when I needed her. Months after the sale went through, she contacted me and said she had heard that I had eventually bought the apartment and wants her commission. I was shocked to hear her claim, as I was extremely unhappy with her poor service as an agent. I had expected the agent to help with financial negotiations.

She said that I had verbally agreed to 1% and that her husband, who was there at the time, would back her up on this point. I remember the conversation slightly differently: I recall her asking for 1.5% and my not agreeing to that amount. Nor do I remember agreeing to 1%, but it is possible.

I checked around and found that the rates for real estate agents are not uniform. Apparently they vary from agent to agent and depend on the bargaining skills of the buyers. Other buyers in the same project used agents who are not more experienced or significantly better than the one I used. The commissions ranged between 0.5% and 2%. Many people paid 1%.

How much do I have to pay, if anything?

Answer:

The fundamental question is this: Did she provide the service that she said she would?

You say you are extremely unhappy with her service. Does that mean that she did the minimal amount of work that entitles her to compensation

Reneging on a Deal

Monday, December 28th, 2009

Q:

If I shook hands with a prospective seller and signed a contract to purchase a house for a set price and prior to the closing the market conditions had reduced the market value of similar houses would we then be permitted to renegotiate the price or is it subject to mee sheporah? Thanks.

Rabbi Yehonoson Dovid Hool answered:

There are several issues here.

Firstly, Mee Sheporah is relevant only if money was paid for a sale but no other kinyan was effected. This is not the case in your circumstance.

The relevant question is whether the contract that you signed prevents you from reneging or not. It is unclear from your question what kind of contract was signed. If it was a deed of sale, usually neither side can back out unilaterally.

Sometimes, however, the parties sign a contract which is nothing more than a declaration of intent to conclude a sale. Whether either side can renege or renegotiate will depend on the text of this contract.

Even if no contract at all was signed but a definite commitment was agreed by both sides, the Halachah does not consider it acceptable to renege on such an agreement (unless unforseen circumstances arise) although one who does renege can not be forced to continue with the agreement. If the price changes significantly, there is a difference of opinion among the Poskim whether one may renege on the agreement, and their are opinions that permit it (although it is commendable to stick to your word).

However, one may always request that the seller bear in mind the drop in price and ask for a renegotiation of the price, but one cannot demand it.

Selling a House With Defects

Monday, December 28th, 2009

Q:

Does a homeowner have a responsibility to the future homeowner all the defects of the home he/she is selling? Or is it the future homeowner’s responsibility to hire a home inspector?

Rabbi Yehonoson Dovid Hool answered:

It depends what type of defects are involved.

If there are defects that are not apparent to a purchaser, the seller is obliged to inform the purchaser. Anything that is readily apparent need not be detailed to the buyer as he is expected to notice this himself. (An extreme example – when selling a car to someone in the presence of the buyer, if the car has only three wheels it is not necessary for the seller to point this out!)

If after the sale the buyer discovers a defect that was present at the time of the sale (and was not immediately noticeable), and the buyer was unaware of this defect at the time of the sale, then he can renege on the purchase and ask for his money back, even if the seller was also unaware of the defect.

However, there are circumstances in which the seller is entitled to repair the defect, preventing the buyer from retracting from the sale. (In general, this is when the defect does not substantially detract from the essence of the item sold.) As always, actual circumstances should be referred to a Dayan or Beis Din.

Undercharging

Monday, December 28th, 2009

by Rabbi Yehonoson Dovid Hool

Q:

My wife and I once sold really cheap what we thought were two prints, 1) a Chagal, and 2) a Salvador Dali. My mother-in-law, who gave them to us, just informed us that the Salvador Dali was in fact a signed lithograph and is worth between $2000-$2500.

Do we have any recourse to try to get it back from the people who bought it from us (assuming that we can locate them)?

Answer:

Indeed you do. If it can be proved that you unknowingly undersold for at least a sixth of the price you can invalidate the sale retroactively, returning the money and receiving the print in return.

Although there is a time-limit for claiming Ona’ah, this applies only to the buyer, who has the opportunity to show it to others and discover the real price, and if he does not return within the designated time he forfeits his right to claim Ona’ah. However, the seller, who no longer has the item in his possession, may claim Ona’ah even much later, when he discovers that he has undercharged for the item

Going to Bais Din

Monday, December 28th, 2009

by Rabbi Yehonoson Dovid Hool

Q:

I am in a dispute with my contractor. He claims I still owe him money, however I dispute it. I have told him many times to take me to beis din and he does not want to take me to court or to beis din. What is my obligation ?

Rabbi Yehonoson Dovid Hool answered:

If you are sure that you do not owe him the money, you need not do anything. However, one should consult with a Dayan with the details of the case to discern as far as possible (in the voluntary absence of the claimant) if indeed his claim is unjustified.