Community Magazine May 2012

According to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, the conventional mode of acquisition of each industry dictates whether a transaction is binding. In industries which provide for the upgrading of a used car, it is necessary for the parties to transfer title to each other for the sale to be valid. Since title transfer is the universally accepted mode of acquisition, the mere exchanging of two cars without legal documentation is not a binding transaction. This ruling applies even if money has been transferred, though a Bet Din will impose a severe injunction on a party which reneges after money has been transferred. Not only does the mode of acquisition determine the validity of a transaction, it also verifies the precise time the sale takes effect. Defining the exact time a transaction legally takes effect is a key factor for instances in which the value of a product depreciated while the sale was pending. If a product depreciated in value before it transferred to a buyer’s legal possession, the seller assumes the loss. Since the transaction was never binding, the buyer need not bear the loss, and subsequently either party may declare the sale null and void. In such an occurrence, even if money was transferred, a Bet Din will not enforce an injunction, since the product is no longer valued at the price originally stipulated by the two parties. According to Torah law, if one uses a product not intended for him as a gift, he is required to pay a rental fee for its usage. Since the product’s owner never intended to allow usage free of charge, he may collect compensation at the lowest market rate charged for use of that product. This law can be applicable when a buyer incidentally uses a product after detecting a flaw and rejecting the item for purchase. Since the buyer used the product after deciding to return it, he is required to reimburse the owner for its use. Likewise, one who uses an item while a transaction is pending, is liable for rent if the sale never comes to fruition. Needless to say, if a transaction fails as a result of a buyer’s inability to make payment, the buyer is required to reimburse the owner for his use of the item in the interim. As a general rule, a Bet Din will not award a litigant with a larger sum than his actual claim. Hence, while it may be possible that a plaintiff is entitled to a greater sum, numerous halachic reasons prevent a Bet Din from advancing funds beyond the amount requested. BROTHER-IN-LAW TRADE-IN Rabbi Max Sutton, Rosh Bet Din Aram Soba, Jerusalem, Israel FROM THE FILES OF THE Bet Din Since title was not transferred on either of the cars at the time of the original exchange, the sale never actually took place. As mentioned in Torah law, in order for a transaction to take effect, a buyer and seller need to perform the conventional mode of acquisition recognized in the industry – in this case, legally transferring titles. Thus both parties have the right to nullify the sale. Although David in the end received title of Jonathan’s car, he was unwilling to transfer title of his car without compensation. Therefore, Jonathan, who never agreed to a deal which included payment of an additional sum of $2000, may still nullify the sale and request that title be returned to him. The depreciated value of each car is the loss of its original owner, as no binding transaction went into effect. Nevertheless, the Bet Din awarded David with his $2000 claim, not to reimburse the depreciated value of his car, but rather as a rental fee for the five months Jonathan had driven David’s car. Although it is possible that the market rental value of the vehicle for the five-month interim was greater than $2000, since David was satisfied with that amount, no additional charge was collected. As mentioned, a Bet Din generally will not award a litigant with a larger sum than his actual claim. Upon payment of the rental fee, the two agreed to uphold their original agreement, and David transferred title of his car to Jonathan. While the case began in a fiery dispute, the two brothers-in-law managed to peacefully reconcile their differences with the help of the Bet Din. the case David, a used car salesman, suggested to his brother- in- law, Jonathan, that he trade in his old car for a newer, 2009 model. Jonathan agreed and, in addition to giving David his old car, paid him $4000 cash to purchase the new model. Later that day, they met at the Department of Motor Vehicles to transfer titles to each other. However, both were surprised to discover that Jonathan’s car had a bank lien on it, preventing the transfer of title to David. Jonathan, who was unaware that a lien was on the car, told David that he would arrange to have the lien released and thereby enable the title transfer. Meanwhile, each took the other’s car home, even though neither car’s title was transferred to the other. Over five months later, Jonathan finally succeeded in getting the lien on his car cleared, and transferred the title to David. However, David was unwilling to transfer title of his car to Jonathan without an additional $2000 in compensation. In Bet Din, David explained that during the five-month delay, Jonathan’s car depreciated in value by approximately $2000. The car was stationed in his used car lot during the delay, but could not be sold because of the lien. In addition, David complained that he had periodically contacted Jonathan and was constantly assured that the matter would be resolved shortly. Jonathan responded that at the time of the trade, he was unaware that there was a lien on his car, and since the matter was beyond his control, he should be exempt from any damages incurred by David. Although the car depreciated in value, according to Torah law a party cannot be held liable to pay for indirect damage caused by circumstances beyond his control. How should the Bet Din rule, in favor of David or Jonathan, and why? verdict: BROTHERLY-LOVE-IN-LAW Endnotes: Pit’hei Teshuva 204:2 Shach 204:2 – Yoter Mishetut Rama 308:7 and 284:4 Pit’hei Teshuva 232:1 Shulhan Aruch and Rama 17:12. torah law ShulhanAruchHoshenMishpat201:2and190:7 52 COMMUNITY MAGAZINE