Community Magazine July 2012

According to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch , one who unintentionally purchases stolen property or merchandise is responsible to return it to its rightful owner. Upon return of the stolen item to its owner, the purchaser may proceed to collect the purchase price from the thief who sold him the stolen goods. In instances in which the purchaser invested money into the property, or enhanced the merchandise before discovering it was stolen, he is entitled to collect payment from the owner for his investment. Although the investment was initially done without the authorization of the owner, by Torah law, the owner must compensate the purchaser for the benefit he received from the investment. According to the vast majority of halachic authorities, this ruling is applicable not only when the purchaser enhanced the stolen product, but also in instances in which he corrected the damage done to the product while in the thief’s possession. Although the item depreciated while in the thief’s possession, and the purchaser improved it only to its value at the time of theft, nevertheless, the purchaser is entitled to compensation. The rationale behind this ruling is as aforementioned, namely, because the purchaser’s investment benefited the owner, he is entitled to compensation for the improvements. In addition, it was more than likely that the investment would have been made by the owner himself, in an attempt to restore the product to its original condition. The minority view of halachic authorities differ, and exempt an owner from payment when the purchaser merely restored the item to its original value. Since the item has only been repaired from the damage caused by the thief, and returned to the owner at the same value it was worth at the time of the theft, they hold that the owner need not compensate the purchaser for the unauthorized investment. If, however, the purchaser increased the value of the stolen item with his investment, the owner is obligated to compensate him for the improvement. The above laws are applicable to an unintentional purchase of stolen merchandise, as well as to a worker or technician who invested time and skill fixing a product. With regard to the exact amount of compensation an owner needs to pay a purchaser for the benefit received, a Bet Din will consider the cost of investment and the enhanced value of the property, and formulate an exact figure for payment. In instances in which a worker invested time and experience fixing a broken stolen product, he is entitled to collect the market rate for his services, since we can safely assume that the owner would have opted to invest the same cost for repairs. As a general rule for all monetary disputes, when a party has possession of the item in dispute, he may legally withhold it, relying on the halachic opinions who rule in his favor. This same ruling applies to a skilled worker claiming payment and in possession of his customer’s product. Needless to say, this logic is compounded when the majority rules in his favor. IN A FIX Rabbi Max Sutton, Rosh Bet Din Aram Soba, Jerusalem, Israel FROM THE FILES OF THE Bet Din The Bet Din awarded Mark a sum of $200 for repairing the stolen computer, nearly the full amount he had claimed. Although the computer was stolen and damaged by John, nevertheless, David had benefited from Mark’s time, skill, and energy, and consequently must compensate him for his services. As the computer’s rightful owner, David would have almost certainly had the laptop fixed by a skilled technician like Mark, and he would have ultimately incurred a similar expense. Hence, while Mark is obligated to return the computer to David, he is entitled to withhold it until he is paid. However, although Mark’s price was $250, our Bet Din awarded him with only $200, since that was the market rate for the time and specific tasks he performed. David had not hired Mark, and therefore he does not need to pay any premium above the established, standard market rate. The Case John, a college student, stole a valuable laptop computer fromDavid on campus. After reckless use of the computer for close to two weeks, it was infected by a virus that caused it to malfunction. John brought the stolen laptop for repair to Mark, a computer technician working on campus. Mark assessed that the computer was significantly damaged and John agreed to pay $250 for its repair, with a scheduled pick up for the following week. In the interim, David had inquired about purchasing a new laptop and contacted Mark, who was also a laptop supplier. When David met Mark at his office, he immediately recognized his stolen laptop on Mark’s desk. Mark explained that he had already fixed the laptop for a fellow named John, who was scheduled to pick it up and pay for its repair. After verifying that the laptop was actually stolen, Mark was willing to return it to David, its rightful owner, but only if he paid him the $250 fee for his work. David refused to pay the $250 fee, as he never hired Mark to do the job. In Bet Din, David further defended his position by claiming that the laptop was stolen in perfect working condition, making him exempt from payment. He suggested that Mark try to collect his wages from John, who did the damage and subsequently contracted him for the job. Mark explained that he had no chance of collecting from John, since he wasn’t returning the computer to him. He added that it seems as if John disappeared, as over a month passed and he never came for the computer. How should the Bet Din rule – in favor of David or Mark? Verdict: AN EASY FIX Torah Law Sources: Shulhan Aruch Hoshen Mishpat 373:1 Baba Messia 14b Bet Yosef citing the Rif Rambam, Hilchot Gezela 9:6 Rashba; Ran; Rosh; Nimukei Yosef Rama citing Rashi: see also Gra 373:3 Penei Yehoshua explaining Rashi Shulhan Aruch Hoshen Mishpat 375 Rivash 715. See also Bet Yosef 375 for further clarification. 72 COMMUNITY MAGAZINE