Shabbat Parashat Vayechi 5784

P'ninat Mishpat: Various Issues Regarding a Printing Press – part I

Case: The defendant (=def) made an arrangement to use the plaintiff’s (=pl) printing operation, renting most of the space and machines. Def was responsible for expenses including municipal tax and va’ad bayit (upkeep along with the building’s other businesses). Pl used his section for his printing press related work. In 2013, pl sold def a used printing press for 80,000 NIS. Recently, def left the premises and sold his business. Pl has different claims against def, [which we will present in installments]. Pl claims 16,400 NIS that def did not pay from the sale of the printing press. Def claims to be exempt because he can deduct the fact that he paid full municipal tax and va’ad bayit even though he rented only two thirds of the property.  

Ruling: Since both sides agree on the outstanding payment on the printing press, but they disagree about the claims for deduction, def must substantiate the latter.

Written agreement – The sides presented beit din with four signed agreements from over the years. In three of them, the agreement’s introduction defines the “muskar” (rental property) as pl’s full hall. The third agreement, signed only by pl, mentions first that def is renting two thirds of the hall and then defines that area as the muskar. In all the contracts, it then says that def is responsible for the muskar’s various charges.

According to the majority opinion, since the first agreement clearly defines the whole hall as the muskar, we are to understand that def is responsible for the payments in full. Although the third contract’s reading sounds like the muskar refers only to def’s two thirds, it is not explicit enough to contradict the assumption that renewed agreements continue the original one. In addition, only pl signed the third agreement, which is an indication that it was not supposed to change the conditions. The minority opinion disagreed with this logic because when there is a change in the language (where it is easier to keep the same language), we can assume there was a purposeful change, and the fact that only pl signed does not mean that his signature is not an agreement to something to his detriment. However, this dayan agrees with the others that def has to pay the municipal tax because the relevant ordinance posits that the main person who uses the property (in this case, def) is responsible for paying municipal tax. Therefore, def had to pay the whole tax, and def does not deserve relief on payment.

The majority also learns that def agreed to pay all the side payments from the fact that he did not demand compensation for the alleged extra third until after the business connections ended and pl demanded def to pay the balance on the printing press. Additionally even when def made the claim, he only did so in regard to enough of the years for him to erase his own obligation. The minority opinion argues that there were also obligations that def had to pl that pl did not make claims on for many years, and that this can be explained by their close relationship at the time.  

Top of page

Print this page

Send to friend