|
 |
 |
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!
2 Comments »
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.
No Comments »
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.
2 Comments »
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
No Comments »
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.
No Comments »
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.
No Comments »
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
No Comments »
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.
No Comments »
December 28th, 2009
Q:
I loaned a person approximately $5000 as he was making a wedding. We have been friends for years – part of the same kehilla but I wouldn’t be invited to weddings. Since the loan he feels very indebted and it feels like we are breaching Ribis D’varim. 1/ How long after the loan does Ribis apply. Practically the friendship may be stronger. 2/ Should the loan be converted to a gift, and he can pay back if he wants to as a gift. Would this change the ribis problem as the closeness is now from the gift?
Rabbi Yehonoson Dovid Hool answered:
If he would not have invited you to the wedding without the loan, you may not attend the wedding. The invitation would constitute Ribbis Devorim, but partaking of hospitality at the wedding would be proper Ribbis.
Once the loan has been repaid, you may receive benefits or favours from the borrower if sufficient time has passed, and the size of the favour or gift is small enough that one would not connect it to the loan.
If you were absolutely certain that the invitation was not because he feels indebted but rather simply because you have become closer, albeit via the loan, it may be permitted, but this is very difficult to define, and seems not to be the case in your case.
Converting the loan into a gift, from a practical point of view is inadvisable. Circumstances that apply today may not apply tomorrow. Even if the loan was genuinely converted into a gift, with no obligation whatsoever to return it, there would still be a problem of Ribbis, which applies even after a loan was repaid, unless the time or size of the gift indicated otherwise, as explained above. (Perhaps one could argue that if the loan was converted into a gift then any favours given would be for the sizeable gift rather than for the one-time loan.)
No Comments »
December 28th, 2009
Q:
I have recently been given the job of interviewing several candidates for an assistant position for someone who will be working as my assistant at my office. My boss handed me several resumes of people he is interested in me interviewing. One of the people is a friend of mine, whom I really don’t want to work with, however it’s not that I think she would be bad at the job; I just don’t think she would work well with me. However, I don’t know if telling my boss that I don’t want her to work under me is taking away from her parnasa or speaking lashon hara or anything else that I shouldn’t be doing according to halacha. Please help me with this situation!
Rabbi Yehonoson Dovid Hool answered:
Your boss expects you to interview candidates for the job, that will be best suited to work as part of the team that already exists. If you genuinely feel that any particular candidate would not work well with you, you are obliged to point this out to the boss. This is part of the responsibility that he has charged you with, and it would not be right to withhold this information from him. However, you may not exaggerate or add any uncomplimentary features that are untrue. You should include in your report all her advantages, but nonetheless point out to your boss your assessment that she would not work well with you. Then your boss has the necessary information that he requested, and he can make an informed choice as to what is best for his business.
No Comments »
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
1.888.ITL.VAAD. |
 |
בית הוועד לענייני משפט |
 |
|
|
