Community Magazine October 2010

24 Community magazine C OMPETITIVE BEHAVIOR IS NOT ONLY PERMISSIBLE ACCORDING TO T ORAH LAW , it is actually considered beneficial to the commercial market. 1 Nevertheless, there is a clear distinction between justified competition and interfering unreasonably with another Jew’s business in an attempt to gain a share of the market. Wrongful interference with another’s business is clearly in violation of this law 2 , which, in certain instances, requires the violator to pay for damages directly caused by his actions. 3 Since the nature of this topic may prove to be controversial, a detailed list of sources has been provided in the endnotes to substantiate the rulings described below. It is important to note that the purpose of this article is to educate readers about their general rights and limitations in the competitive market. A competent rabbinical authority should be consulted on questions pertaining to specific competitive actions. Rabbi Max Sutton, rosh bet din aram soba, Jerusalem, israel Case 1 A License to Steal? Case 2 The Death of a Salesman Case 3 Too Close for Comfort Adam is president of a leading apparel corporation recognized as a primary resource in the industry. His business took off after he obtained licenses to produce brand names that were very desirable to the American public. After doing business together for years, he was notified by the licensor that they were considering terminating their agreement. It became apparent to Adam that David, president of an aggressive, up-and-coming firm, was secretly negotiating for the rights to the license Adam presently owned. Adam summoned David to bet din, claiming that he was infringing upon his livelihood, since this specific license generated a very substantial profit. At first, David denied the claim made against him, but later confessed that he was actively negotiating with the licensor, and was near to finalizing the deal. He nevertheless defended his position, explaining that his actions were totally legal, as his conduct was common practice in the commercial market. Furthermore, he added that the licensor was obviously unhappy with the present arrangement with Adam and was therefore seeking an alternate vendor. Should the bet din rule in Adam’s favor, or may David proceed with the negotiations? Morris was a senior commission based salesman working for Elliot’s wholesale operation. Over the years through his position at the company, he established many contacts with buyers and came to enjoy close relationships with the merchandise managers of the industry. After showing the company’s new spring line to his regular customer list, he heard from a friend of a very attractive offer from the competition which included an increase in salary along with a full range of benefits. Although Morris had always been loyal to his employer, he felt he couldn’t pass up this opportunity, and so he left his job to begin working for the competition. Upon beginning his new job, Morris attempted to bring all of the customers he had serviced, to his new employer, and to divert unfilled orders he had generated while at his previous position, to his present company. Elliot was appalled by Morris’s behavior and claimed that Morris had no right to lure away customers, and surely not to channel in- house orders over to the competition. Morris counterclaimed that his personal relationships with various customers did not belong to Elliot, and he therefore may take the orders he had generated while working for Elliot, to his new place of work. He claimed that since he had not yet received his commission for those sales, it was his right to direct any orders he worked on to the company of his choice. How should the bet din rule – in favor of Morris or Elliot? Mindy is a well-known speech therapist whose services are used by many day schools in her local neighborhood. With the growing demand for special education, she opened an agency which provided teachers for schools and private individuals in need of special ed. services. Sari, a teacher who had worked for the agency, quit her position and advertised the opening of an agency which was seemingly in direct competition with Mindy’s. After weeks of struggle and unnecessary hostility between the two women, they agreed to bring their case before a bet din for legal arbitration. In bet din, Mindy claimed that Sari was snatching teachers away from her agency and hiring them for her own. In addition, Sari had no right to “steal her business,” noting that the opening of a competing agency would definitely affect her income. Sari counterclaimed that she had the legal right to hire any teacher of her choice without restriction. Furthermore, she argued, her agency was targeting a different community than that of Mindy. Should the bet din find in favor of Mindy or Sari? F ROM T HE F ILES OF T HE B ET D IN THE COMPETITION