Community Magazine September 2011

58 COmmuNItY mAGAZINe The Heat of the Summer There are various rulings in the Shulhan Aruch concerning a messenger who derives a monetary benefit by making a purchase on behalf of another. In certain instances, a messenger is entitled to keep the benefit for himself, while very often he is obligated to either forward or split the benefit with the party who sent him. Needless to say, if a messenger performs an unlawful transaction and derives a monetary benefit, he must return the illegal gain to the party against whom he committed the crime. The following laws apply only if a messenger is supplied with means of payment to make a purchase. If a messenger uses his own funds to make a purchase on behalf of the sender, the following rulings may not be applicable. According to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch , if a merchant, while selling a product, willingly increases the quantity of merchandise at no extra charge, the additional merchandise may obviously be kept by the buyer. Since the seller consciously added merchandise to the sale, we assume he intended to award the buyer with a gift. If a messenger is representing a buyer, and additional merchandise is included in the sale, generally the additional merchandise is to be credited to the buyer and not to the messenger. A classic example of a case where a messenger has no claim to the additional goods is a “buy one get one free” sale. Since it is clear that the free item is a gift intended solely for the actual buyer, a messenger may not withhold the additional product. Nevertheless, in instances where a friendly relationship exists between the seller and the messenger, the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch is a bit more complicated. When the buyer is billed full price for the merchandise as labeled on the price tag, it would seem that any extra goods awarded in the transaction at no charge by the seller are intended as a gift for his friend, the messenger. This applies where the seller awarded the extra goods for free and did not discount the purchase price of the original merchandise to include the extra goods as part of a package deal for the buyer. On the other hand, it is also logical to assume that if not for the money spent by the buyer, the seller would not have extended a gift to the messenger. It is only because of the purchase made that the seller included a bonus for his friend, the messenger. Hence, the Shulhan Aruch rules that the buyer and his messenger are to split the additional merchandise evenly. Since the messenger directly benefited from the buyer’s money, and the buyer benefitted from the messenger’s friendship with the seller, neither party is considered to have been able to obtain the gift without the other, and they must therefore divide the additional merchandise. In short, the buyer and his messenger are viewed as partners in the additional merchandise, each making their contribution toward the goods. It is important to note that according to this rationale, even if the seller is contacted and confirms that he intended to credit the messenger, nevertheless, the messenger is obligated to split the merchandise evenly with the buyer. As aforementioned, both parties contributed to the deal and are inherently partners in the venture. While some halachic authorities dispute this point, the majority rule as mentioned. Needless to say, if it is obvious that the seller provided the messenger with a gift for reasons unrelated to the purchase made on behalf of the buyer, the additional merchandise is awarded entirely to the messenger. There are other instances not discussed in this article in which a messenger is entitled to keep a benefit received. Due to the complexity of this topic, it is incumbent upon all parties involved to contact a competent halachic authority before taking action. FROM THE FILES OF THE Bet Din the case Jackwas scheduled tobe assistant head counselor of a summer camp in his local neighborhood. Weeks before he started his job, he was asked by Sam, the camp owner, to purchase sporting equipment in preparation for the new summer season. Sam supplied Jack with the money and an itemized list of the sporting gear the camp needed to purchase. Jack followed Sam’s instructions and went to a local retailer known to be reasonably priced. When he arrived at the store, he was happy to meet the store owner who was an old friend of his father. Jack placed the $3,750 order and received an itemized bill of the cost of each product purchased. He was pleasantly surprised to discover that the store owner, from the goodness of his heart, threw in about $250 worth of sporting goods free of charge. When Jack returned to Sam with the merchandise, Sam inquired about the remaining goods left in the van. Jack responded that the store owner was an old friend of his family, and that the merchandise was obviously intended as a gift to him. Sam laughed at Jack’s response, commenting that he never met a store owner who gives away merchandise for free. Jack was adamant about his claim, explaining that it was evident from his meeting with the store owner that the extra merchandise was given to him as a gesture for old times’ sake. Who is entitled to the extra $250 worth of sporting goods – Jack or Sam, and why? Shulhan Aruch H.M. 232:2 Ibid 183:6, Rif, Ran, and Rashba – see Bet Yosef and Shulhan Aruch:6, Rama & Kessot Hahoshen 183:7, Netivot:9, Aruch Hashulhan 183 :8 torah law Endnotes: