P'ninat Mishpat: Unsuccessful Transfer of Yeshiva – part IV | 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. Pl demands to be paid for the outlays they made on behalf of the yeshiva, especially in staff salaries during the summer of 5782.

Ruling: What caused pl to close the yeshiva : Based on documents and testimonies, it is clear that the main reason for pl’s decision was not primarily the alleged breaches of contract but the educational difficulties. If not for the educational problems, in regard to which there are not strong claims, pl would apparently have continued and dealt separately with the financial disagreements. Since, in order to obligate payment based on reliance on another’s assurance, it is necessary to connect between the actions of the one to be obligated and the damage, we cannot obligate on these grounds
Payments to pl for improving the yeshiva : Testimony indicated that while the yeshiva’s survival was questionable, pl made improvements that made it more viable, and perhaps def should pay for those improvements. However, it is clear that rydf had lost so much money in trying to keep the yeshiva operating, that he was not willing to invest more, even if pl made improvements. This makes it like the Talmudic case of a field not made for planting (see Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 375:1). There would then have to be clear benefit from the actions, which appears lacking. Additionally, the Rashba (Shut VI, 111) says that if the recipient of benefit says explicitly that he will not pay for what someone claims to do on his behalf (as def wrote in the agreement), he is exempt from paying for benefit. The Pitchei Teshuva (CM 264:3) does cite the Pri Tevua as saying that when there is clear benefit, warning that one will not pay does not exempt. However, the Pitchei Choshen (Sechirut 8:(64)) says that the Pri Tevua may be talking about a case where he wants the benefit and just does not want to pay or when he requested that the matter be done for free and did not categorically refuse to pay. Therefore, def does not have to pay pl for his efforts on behalf of the yeshiva.