Shabbat Parashat Matot Masei 5784

P'ninat Mishpat: Mutual Repairs Agreement – part II

Case: The plaintiff (=pl) owns and operates an auto-repair shop. Pl and the defendant (=def) agreed (everything was oral) to an arrangement whereby def would use pl’s facilities and tools to fix cars for his customers and rent storage area from pl. Def was to pay 15% of this income to pl. Due to technical pressures, pl received all of def’s fees and paid def a monthly “salary,” representative of def’s earnings. [We will deal with various points of dispute in installments.] The two sides disagreed as to whether def has to pay pl 15% for repairs he does for free and for repairs he does for his own car. Pl sold def his car, but def did not change the name on the registration because he was in the process of bankruptcy. Therefore, bills that def has run up were charged to pl, prompting pl to revoke the car’s license. Def now wants to reverse the sale with the claim that he had made it conditional on not changing title and demands extra money for improving the car while by him.

Ruling: 15% without payment received: Fundamentally, there is no difference whose car def repairs, as the point of payment is not profit sharing, but the amount of use of pl’s premises. The 15% rate is just a convenient “meter” of usage. On the other hand, def is allowed to give customers discounts, and pl is to receive 15% of the paid price. Regarding cases in which def doesn’t charge at all (e.g., for a relative), the majority of dayanim agreed on a compromise of giving pl as if the price had been half of the normal charge. When def did not receive anything because he did not succeed in extracting payment, he is exempt from paying pl.

Nullifying the sale of the car: First, we point out that a sale of a car can be legally binding without changing title, as opposed to the situation regarding the sale of a home. The title change was instituted as a declarative step, to prevent the buyer from running up liabilities on the sale (as happened here). As a movable object, the kinyan on a car is not by giving money but by meshicha, moving it in the capacity of the new owner. This occurs when one drives the car, at least when done in side streets, as classical Halacha subscribes regarding animals (see Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 197:3).

Although def claims that the sale in this case was conditional, since pl disputes this, it is an example of a definite sale with a possible condition, and the burden of proof is on the one who wants to enforce the possible condition (ed. note- as we saw last installment). Because pl was being hurt financially by def’s use of the car in his name and def did not act as requested, pl was permitted to prevent its use, and def will need to pay the fees of reinstating the car to legal use.  

Top of page

Print this page

Send to friend