Community Magazine September 2011

elul 5771 september 2011 59 YOU JUDGE ! BE THE Rabbi Max Sutton, Rosh Bet Din Aram Soba, Jerusalem, Israel A SITUATION ERUPTS Robert, a renowned professional photographer, was regularly hired to do weddings and special occasions overseas. His standard rate when traveling included a daily charge of $2500 for every day he was abroad until his return to his country of origin. A banquet dinner was being held in London in honor of a Jewish philanthropist, and the board of trustees hired Robert for two days of his services. After completing the job, Robert arrived at London’s Heathrow airport only to discover that a massive volcano eruption in Iceland had grounded all European flights for at least a day. Robert contacted the board after he arrived home informing them that he was entitled to an additional $2500 for the time delay, as his contract stipulated clearly “$2500 daily until return to his country of origin.” The board rejected his claim, and was unwilling to pay him for a delay that was totally unforeseen and caused by a natural disaster. In bet din , Robert supported his position by explaining that his claim is similar to a daily rental car fee that is paid until the car is returned. How should bet din rule – in favor of Robert or the board of trustees? verdict: A SPLIT DECISION The Bet Din ruled that Jack and Sam were to split the additional sporting goods evenly. This verdict was not based on a compromise between the parties, but rather followed the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch . Since the store owner provided an itemized bill with the sale of the goods, it stands to reason that the extra merchandise was intended as a gift to Jack and not included in the sale to Sam. Nevertheless, logic dictates that if not for Sam spending $3,750, the store owner would not have extended the gift of sporting goods worth $250. Hence, they are viewed as equal partners in the venture, Jack contributing his personal relationship, and Sam the finances. As mentioned in Torah law, even if the store owner confirms that he intended to give the extra merchandise to Jack, according to most poskim (halachic authorities), Sam would still be entitled to half the sporting goods. In addition, the Bet Din contacted the store owner and determined that he had actually taken into consideration both parties when he gave the extra sporting goods to Jack. Congratulations to last month’s winners who submitted correct decisions for this case: Yehoshua Saks Sherrie Schweky Jill Elbaz YOU BE THE JUDGE and send your response to YouJudge@Community M .com Verdicts – and the accompanying rationale – will be reviewed by the Rosh Bet Din. The first three correct submissions received before the deadline will win a $50 gift certificate to a Community Magazine advertiser! Correct entries will receive honorable mention in the next issue when the Rosh Bet Din’s verdict is printed.