Community Magazine July 2014

64 COMMUNITY MAGAZINE Jacob, president of a successful charity organization, decided to update the computer room with new equipment, and allocated funds for the project. Of the 30 computers owned by the organization, more than half were busted, and were surely not worth fixing. Leon, the superintendent, chose not to dispose of them, but rather to sell them to a used parts dealer, and he earned a handsome sum of $1200. When the new equipment arrived, Jacob proudly expressed his joy over finally trashing the old equipment, and thanked Leon for the labor entailed in disposing of it. Later that day, Jacob found out about Leon’s profit from the sale, and asked Leon to forward the income to the organization. Leon refused to forward the funds on the grounds that Jacob’s intention all along was to dump the old gear, and as superintendent it was his job to dispose of it. Since he could have dumped it, it stands to reason he reserved the right to take it for himself or sell it. Jacob agreed that he intended on dumping the equipment, but he never explicitly instructed Leon to do so. Furthermore, since the old computers belonged to the organization, it should receive even unexpected profits which they generate. How should the Bet Din rule, in favor of Leon or Jacob, and why? According to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch , personal property is not legally abandoned unless its owner gives explicit instruction to dispose of the item. In certain instances, even if the owner himself throws a valuable item into a public area, it is not regarded as abandoned, and a finder may not acquire the item. The action of throwing an item into a public area can be attributed to frustration or the like, and is not necessarily an indication that the owner formally relinquishes his ownership. It goes without saying, then, that the mere intent to dispose of an item is not a license for another party to take possession. Leading halachic authorities debate the question at to the legal status of an itemwhich the owner abandons without being aware of the item’s value. According to most halachic authorities, the abandonment is not legally binding, as it had been done on error, and therefore, if somebody took possession of the item, he must return it to its owner. Other halachic authorities, however, disagree, arguing that since the owner clearly instructed to dispose of his property without first inquiring into its current value, he legally abandoned the item. Although he mistakenly forfeited the remaining value of the item, it is no longer his property since he explicitly instructed that it be disposed of without trying to determine it value. Hence, he cannot reclaim the item after it has been taken by somebody else. As a general rule, in instances where a person’s ownership over an item is subject to a debate among halachic authorities, the party in possession may withhold the item and claim ownership. Since halachic authorities support his claim of ownership, he may rely on their opinion and withhold an item already in his possession. If, however, other halachic considerations or factors determine that he is illegally withholding property, he obviously must forfeit his possession. The Shulhan Aruch rules that one is entitled to a commission fee for enabling the sale of an item. Even if no stipulation for payment was made prior to the sale, nevertheless, the owner is required to compensate the salesman for his services. Likewise, if a party ships and handles an item for an owner, he is entitled to compensation for his services even if payment was not stipulated from the outset. The rationale behind this ruling is that people are generally unwilling to provide a service without receiving compensation, and therefore the stipulation is presumed, even if it was not articulated. Naturally, one can only expect compensation in instances in which the service provided is clearly beneficial to the recipient. When the terms of payment were not explicitly agreed upon, a Bet Din will appraise the value of the service provided according to the commercial market rate of the relevant industry. A JUNK COLLECTOR Rabbi Max Sutton, Rosh Bet Din Aram Soba, Jerusalem, Israel FROM THE FILES OF THE Bet Din Torah Law photo by: Abraham Amzalak The Case Verdict: COLLECTOR OF WAGES The Bet Din ruled in favor of the organization by awarding it $1000 of the proceeds of the sale of its computers. However, as compensation for Leon’s services – selling the computer parts to a dealer, and hand delivering the equipment – the Bet din awarded him $200 of the proceeds. Jacob, the organization’s president, never explicitly instructed to discard the old computers. Although he fully intended to scrap them, nevertheless, he never legally abandoned the property, thereby making it illegal for Leon to sell these assets, which still belonged to the organization. Although Jacob later expressed his gratitude to Leon for dumping the equipment, nevertheless, at the time of sale it was the property of the organization, and hence, the proceeds of the sale are to be forwarded accordingly. Furthermore, Jacob was unaware of the inherent value of the computer parts, and mistakenly intended on dumping them. According to numerous halachic authorities, as discussed above, one who mistakenly abandons property retains ownership, and therefore, even after the sale of the old computers, Jacob may reclaim his ownership and collect the proceeds of the sale. The latter is true even if Jacob had instructed one of his employees to throw away the old equipment. Leon was awarded $200, however, since, according to Torah law, he is entitled to compensation even though no payment had been stipulated. Shulhan Aruch Hoshen Mishpat 261:4, Netivot Hamishpat; Shulhan Aruch Hoshen Mishpat 273:2, 7; Shulhan Aruch Hoshen Mishpat 142:2 , Kesot Hahoshen 142:1, Netivot Hamishpat 142:2; Rema , Hoshen Mishpat 264:4. Endnotes: