P'ninat Mishpat: Unsuccessful Transfer of Yeshiva – part III | Beit Din Eretz Hemda - Gazit | Beit Midrash

Sections
P'ninat Mishpat

קטגוריה משנית

Case: The defendant (=def), a non-profit run by the rosh yeshiva (=rydf) had run a yeshiva for years and did not want to continue due to financial and educational difficulties. They negotiated with the plaintiff (=pl), another educational non-profit, to have them take over the yeshiva at its location and pay rent to def. A written agreement was signed in June 2022. After starting to enter the educational sphere and preparing, physically and educationally, at the end of the 5782 "academic year," pl informed the students’ parents soon before the 5783 academic year that pl would close the yeshiva. [We will present elements of the dispute in installments.] Pl cites examples of def’s breach of contract, claiming they prevented pl from continuing to operate the yeshiva. These include that: def did not tell pl they would have to pay rent also to a shul and a small school who share the building; def withheld donors’ names; def spoke against pl to students.

Ruling: Withholding potential donors’ names : Indeed, def did not provide all of the lists they committed to in the contract, but we must see if that breach is grounds to nullify the whole agreement. Pl admitted in beit din that the time to use a list of potential donors had not yet come when the yeshiva closed. Thus, there was no damage, and, as witnesses corroborated, it is likely that had the partnership developed healthily, def would have shared the information. Furthermore, the Ba’er Heitev (Choshen Mishpat 176:38) seems to cite two opinions on whether when one side to a partnership violates a provision of their agreement, the agreement becomes null (Lechem Rav 119), or not but that one side should take the other to beit din to enforce the provision (Mabit I:151). The Ba’er Heitev suggests that there is no disagreement and that it depends on the specific case. Distinctions can be whether the provision is on a primary or secondary matter, or whether the breach was one-time or ongoing. Based on the above, this breach did not nullify the agreement.
Payments to school and shul : The contract states that parts of the campus belong to others, with whom pl can agree to rent or not. Pl claims that they did not know that some of these areas are used by the yeshiva on a regular basis. Def said that they informed pl. Since the simple reading of the contract is that all areas that only the yeshiva used belong to def and the contract does not specify, the burden of proof is on def to prove they clearly informed pl. Therefore, this matter is not considered a breach of contract.
Speaking against pl: A meeting between def’s administration and student representatives took place at the end of July. According to pl, rydf incited the students against pl. Pl brought a student to testify. Def’s lawyer clearly hinted to the student before he testified that he should be afraid about his testimony. The student ended up saying that pl was discussed at the meeting, but "nothing too severe was said." While we can infer that negative things were said, we do not have proof of anything that would be a breach of contract. (Def was fined for their lawyer’s immoral attempt to intimidate the young witness.)
We will complete the treatment of this din Torah next time.