- Sections
- P'ninat Mishpat
19
Ruling: Last time, we saw that pl was wrong in leaving the work and lost his right to finish the job.
Pl claims that even if he was wrong for leaving the job, his fee should be reduced only according to the prorated cost of the work needed to be finished. The contract states that if pl fails to keep to the time schedule or does not fix flaws within ten days, def can replace him, after warning. This grants def the right to have the same work done, even at a higher fee (def must present proof of payment). The warning does not need to be about an imminent hiring of someone else, but just that he make demands about what is expected of pl, which it is documented that he did.
The written specification of the aluminum work requires "Belgian style," which pl did not provide, and therefore def wants them replaced. The problem was detected before installation, and the sides decided to install what was ordered and compensate monetarily as needed. Now, def claims that the aluminum is of unreasonably low quality. Pl denies ever receiving the specification sheet for the aluminum and that they therefore ordered "standard" aluminum. Pl also claims that eng agreed to the aluminum, which eng denies.
Beit din concludes that it is unreasonable for pl to have received exact specifications for everything except the aluminum and to nevertheless set a price for it, especially because we are unaware of any "standard" product. There are also indications that pl received the information and acknowledged he made a mistake in the order. The rule is that when a litigant quotes a third party and the third party denies what was said in his name, the litigant is not believed. Since both sides gave special trust to eng, pl’s claims in this matter are rejected. However, beit din’s expert finds that the aluminum installed is of reasonable quality and since def allowed it to be installed, the aluminum need not be replaced. Pl will have to return a significant amount of money for the downgrade.

P'ninat Mishpat (773)
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit
619 - Pay for Contractor who Left the Job under Protest – part I
620 - Pay for Contractor who Left the Job under Protest – part II
621 - Valid Excuses to Not Pay Rent?
Load More

P'ninat Mishpat: Counter Claims – part II (Child Care, Foundations)
based on ruling 81059 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Tevet 5784

Returning Pre-Payment for a Rental
Various Rabbis | Shvat 5768

P'ninat Mishpat: Unsuccessful Transfer of Yeshiva – part I
based on ruling 82138 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Adar 5784

P'ninat Mishpat: Spillover of Courtyard Dispute
based on ruling 81059 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Tevet 5784

Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit

A Commercial Rental for a Closed Business – part II
based on ruling 80047 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Shvat 1 5782

Payment for Not Clearing Warehouse On Time – part II
based on ruling 75076 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Av 20 5780

Repercussions of a Sale That Turned Out Not Happening – part II
(based on ruling 83045 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts)
18 Sivan 5784

Who Breached the Contract? – part IV
Based on ruling 81087 of the Eretz Hemdah-Gazit Rabbinical Courts
Iyar 20 5783

“Ba’omer” or “La’omer”?
Rabbi Daniel Mann | Iyar 4 5777

The Bracha on Blossoming Trees
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff | Adar II 27 5782

Salad at Meat and Milk Meals
Rabbi Daniel Mann | Tamuz 8 5780

Pruzbul
Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff | Elul 17 5782

Parashat Hashavua: Kedoshim Teh’yu, Goy Kadosh – Are They Related?
Rabbi Yossef Carmel | Iyar 5785
Daf Yomi Shevuot Daf 7
R' Eli Stefansky | 10 Iyar 5785
