Shabbat Parashat Beshalach 5784

P'ninat Mishpat: Problems Arising from the Sale of Stores in New Project – part III

Case: The plaintiff (=pl) bought two stores in a new project, developed by the defendant (=def) which was, at the time, mostly built. [We have seen various elements of the conflict. We end off with a few of pl’s technical complaints about the building.]

Ruling: 1. Fire safety system: Claims: When def gave pl access to the stores, the fire system did not work, which prevented pl’s renters from receiving permission to operate the stores. To save the situation, pl spent 10,675 NIS to have a new system installed. Pl claims that def is responsible because he did not fix the system promptly. Def counters that the whole problem was one faulty battery, and he should not have to pay for the unnecessary expense of pl installing a new system, separate from the whole building’s system, and that part of the problem with the system was changes pl did to the stores.

Ruling: Since def did not give over the stores in a manner that they could be used, he is obligated by what pl felt compelled to do. That starts with the 1,462 NIS for an expert to recommend a plan of action. At this point, we cannot determine how much needed to be done to fix the system, but def’s claim of just changing a battery seems overly simplistic. In any case, def admits that pl asked him to fix the system and that he delayed because of difficulties dealing with some of the building’s owners, which left pl with few options. On the other hand, pl should have informed def what he planned to do and have documented the system’s problems. He also paid for a better system than he had coming to him. As a compromise, def shall pay for the cost of the expert plus a third of the cost of the new system (total of 4,533 NIS).

2. Flaws in the ceiling and walls: Claims: Pl claims that there are many flaws, just that they are presently covered by a drop ceiling. Def counters that due to the drop ceiling, they cannot even know if there are any problems, and that if there are problems, they would be ready to fix them, which they cannot do now. Also, for the foreseeable future, any flaws would not cause problems.

Ruling: The claim is dismissed on a couple grounds. First, with a lack of proof that there are flaws, strict law does not call for payment. Second, when there is not a good reason to disallow one who is responsible to have something fixed from doing so himself, according to the Tumim and Netivot Hamishpat, the damaged side cannot force the obligated to pay money. Finally, as long as there is no plan to raise the ceiling, there is no damage to pay for.

3. Misplaced door: Claims: Pl claims that he wants to move one of the doors, which was not installed according to plans (cost estimate is 3,500 NIS). Def responds that pl saw the location on the day of transfer and accepted the situation. Pl denies agreeing. Def was asked to provide records of the day of transfer but found only one page.

Ruling: Since there is a definite deficiency and only an unproven claim of waiving of rights, def should pay. The need to move the door and its practical cost are not fully clear. Based on compromise, we obligate def 2,500 NIS for this.

Top of page

Print this page

Send to friend