Shabbat Parashat Pinchas 5783

P'ninat Mishpat: Realty Fee Without a Contract – part I

Case: The plaintiff (=pl) is an agent who operated on behalf of the defendants (=def) in two acquisitions, six months apart. Def and pl are hard of hearing, which has a bearing on the case. Pl had def sign a standard agent’s contract, but it was void of all the pertinent details, which pl filled in later. Def bought the second apartment for 2,425,000 NIS and pl demands 2% on that. Def claims that they were not able to see what they were signing and that pl had said that it was a request of a discount for the purchase (pl denies that). Def had paid pl for the previous purchase and claimed that they thought there would be no further charge for the second apartment, which made sense considering they had told pl about the project. Def countersued for return of money from the first deal, in which they had signed two documents, one for assistance in the transaction process (10,000 NIS) and another, a standard 2% agents fee to try to sell their previous apartment. Def claim they did not agree to the extra service charge and want the amount they paid returned.

Ruling: We find that pl was the effective factor in the purchase of the second apartment. Although def were aware of the project in which it was bought, they decided to engage pl to find a specific apartment that met their unique needs. If it had been so clear that they were going to buy in that project, they would not have gone to see several other apartments with pl. Pl was involved in ironing out many details and was also involved in negotiations and def’s signing.

We also do not accept the claim that payment on one transaction should have exempted def from payment on another. The acts an agent takes are unique for each transaction.

The matter of realization of what they were signing is more complicated. In general, we do not allow one who signed a document to claim that he did not know what he was signing (Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 45:3, based on the Rashba). However, the Mahariaz Angel (79) says that the Rashba was referring to a case where the document was written by a third party, whom we can assume the signer accepted and obligated himself to that which was written there. However, if a party to the document wrote it, we do not assume that the signer’s agreement is open-ended.

In this case, we have been convinced that def are capable of obligating themselves financially, despite their need to communicate by sign language. However, it is natural that in matters that are out of their regular involvements, they need help in processing and that they put their trust in pl, a professional with similar problems to theirs. Although the sides differ about exactly what def were told about the document, pl admits that he did not explicitly tell def about the extent of the obligation it could represent, as he should have. This is significant especially when coupled with the fact that the agent’s contract was not as specific as it is supposed to be.

We continue next time with the deficiencies of the agent’s contract. 

Top of page

Print this page

Send to friend