Business Halacha Daily

 Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.org 

Rav Yosef Dovid Josilowsky

Question: A fellow walks into someone’s house, picks up an item that he wants, puts money on the table, and says, “I’m buying this item whether you like it or not.” Is this a valid sale?

Answer: We said in the last segment that a forced sale is valid, and the Shulchan Aruch rules that this is true even if the seller does not say that he consents to the sale.

There is a difficulty with this ruling in that it seems to contradict a Gemara in Bava Kama that defines the difference between a gazlan and a chamsan in that a gazlan steals without paying, while a chamsan does pay. The Gemara then asks: If someone gives money, people do not consider this to be a sin at all. Why is he classified as a chamsan? The Gemara responds that we are referring to a case where the seller never consented to the sale.

This Gemara seems to be saying that a forced sale is only valid if the seller says that he consents. If so, how could the Shulchan Aruch rule against an explicit Gemara?

The Nesivos Hamishpat explains that the Gemara is not talking about a sale that was forced by threatening to harm the seller. There, his expression of consent is not needed because we assume that he does agree to sell the item in order to save his life. This Gemara, however, is speaking about a case similar to the one in question, where someone simply took his friend’s item against his will and paid for it. In this case, where the situation does not lead to the presumption that the seller probably consented to the sale, the Gemara says that his explicit consent is needed to validate the sale.

Accordingly, we cannot say that the case in question is a valid sale unless the owner actually expresses consent to sell the item.

 Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.org 

Rabbi Yosef Dovid Josilowsky

Question: A fellow owns a house in a popular location. He is getting many offers to buy the house but he is not interested in moving. One day, someone walks over to him, pulls out a gun, and says, “Your house is worth $1 million. I am buying it right now.” Is this sale valid?

Answer: The Gemara says that if someone is forced to sell something, the sale is valid. The Rishonim debate whether the seller has to at least express his consent to the sale. The Shulchan Aruch rules that as long as money is exchanged, the deal is valid, even if the seller never said that he agrees.

The reason is, based on the circumstances, we can assume that the seller agreed to the sale in order to save his life, even if he didn’t openly say so.

Question: What if the buyer demands a discount? For example, what if he forces the homeowner whose house is worth $1 million to accept $900,000 for it?

Answer: The Rishonim write that a sale due to duress is only valid if the item is being sold for a fair price. Whereas, if the buyer forces him to sell at a discounted price, the sale would not be valid. The reason for this distinction is that while a forced sale is valid, a forced gift is not. If the buyer forces the seller to give him a discount, he is essentially forcing him to give him a gift, which is not a valid transaction.

 Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.org 

Rav Yosef Greenwald

Question: Reuven asks Shimon, a business professional, to join him for lunch in a restaurant in order to ask him some business-related questions. When the bill comes, Shimon expects Reuven to pay for his meal; however, it soon became clear that Shimon was not planning on doing so. Can Shimon tell Reuven that he should pay?

Answer: The Poskim discuss a case where someone tells his friend to come eat a meal with him. Most Poskim say that if he doesn’t expressly tell his friend that he will be sponsoring, it cannot be assumed that the meal is free.

The exception to this rule would be if it is standard industry practice that someone seeking information pays for the entire meal of the other party. If that were the case, it can be assumed that he is paying for the meal. Otherwise, this assumption cannot be made.

There are some Poskim who disagree and say that if someone invites his friend for a meal, even if he doesn’t expressly say that it is free, it can be assumed that he won’t charge for it. Since this a machlokes haposkim, the muchzik will have the upper hand. Still, as long as the meal isn’t paid for yet, the one who invited his friend to the restaurant cannot be forced to pay on behalf of the invitee.

Question: Can Shimon then say that if his meal is not being paid for, he will consider this a business meeting and will charge for the advice he is giving?

Answer: If it is the norm in the industry to charge for this type of advice, then he could make that claim.

 Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.org 

Rav Yosef Greenwald

Question: Reuven pays a lot of money to fly in a famous singer to perform at his simcha. Shimon hears that this singer is coming to town and hires him to sing at his simcha as well. Reuven says that Shimon should pay for half of the plane ticket and related expenses because he is benefiting from having the singer in town. Is he correct? 

Answer: The Poskim discuss a case where Reuven invests money in a property that he believes to be his. Later, he discovers that he made a mistake and the property actually belongs to Shimon.

The Nesivos Hamishpat says that Reuven cannot charge Shimon for his work because he did it for himself, not for Shimon. The Ketzos Hachoshen argues and says that since, at the end of the day, he improved Shimon’s property, he can demand payment for his work.

It would seem that our case is similar, as Reuven paid for the ticket for himself and Shimon derived benefit from that. It could thus be argued that the halacha would hinge on the machlokes between the Ketozs and Nesivos.

However, I believe that in this case, everyone would agree that Shimon does not have to pay for any of the traveling expenses. In the Poskim’s case, Reuven did work on Shimon’s property and upgraded the property. In our case, Reuven didn’t do any work “on Shimon’s property.” He only did work for himself and Shimon happened to benefit from that. I believe that even the Ketzos would agree that Shimon does not have to pay for the travel expenses in this case.

 Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.org 

Rav Yosef Greenwald

Question: A contractor is building a home and decides on his own to install outdoor lighting to beautify the house at night. The homeowner says that he didn’t need those lights and that he won’t pay for them. A few weeks later, the contractor notes that those lights are turned on and used every night. Since the homeowner is deriving benefit from them, can the contractor come back to him and demand payment?

Answer: This is a good example of a case where it would have been better for the homeowner to be truthful upfront.
If he had originally claimed that he didn’t really want the outdoor lights but he’ll keep them now that they’re already installed, it would be a case of aino asuya lita, and he would only have to pay the amount of value that is added to the house because it has these lights. He would not have to pay the full cost for that job.
However, the Rishonim say that if a person says that he doesn’t want something and therefore will not be paying for it, but then ends up using it, he is showing that he really did want it. In such a case, it is considered asuya lita and the contractor would be considered an employee who must be paid for the full job. In this case, not being genuine will come back to cost the homeowner. 

 Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.org 

Rav Yosef Greenwald

Question: A secretary took it upon herself to decorate her office, and installed some of her own paintings on the walls. When her boss sees it, he says he doesn’t like them and, therefore, won’t pay her for the full price. Instead, he says that he will pay cost-price for her paintings. She’s insulted and says she’ll just take them back. However, he doesn’t want it removed because he is worried that doing so will ruin the walls. What is the halacha in this case?

Answer: The Gemara says that if someone goes into a field and upgrades it, the owner can tell him to undo it and refuse to pay him. Alternatively, the worker can choose to take it back if he desires. If, however, the upgrade was something like planting a tree where uprooting it will negatively affect the owner, the worker cannot choose to take it back if the owner is willing to keep it and pay him for the cost. In other words, he can’t be forced to ruin his ground by uprooting the tree. Since he does not want the tree, this would be a case of “aino asuya lita”, and he would only have to pay the amount that the value of his field went up because it now has this tree in it. 

That would seem to be the halacha in this case. Although the secretary believed that she was beautifying the office, the owner can’t be forced to agree with her. If the only reason he doesn’t tell her to take the paintings back is because doing so would damage the walls, it would be a case of aino asuya lita and he would only have to pay the amount that the office’s value increased because it is now adorned with artwork, which would probably not be much.

 Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.org 

Rav Yosef Greenwald

Question: I hired someone to paint my office. When he finished the job, I saw that the color was slightly different than what we agreed upon. I really prefer to redo the job entirely, but if Bais Din were to tell me that I need to pay for the job, I would just keep it as is. What is the halacha in this scenario?

Answer: I was once asked a similar question; however, in that instance, someone’s office was painted in a color that he felt was detrimental to his business. He had wanted a calm color and the painter had used a brighter, louder color, which he felt would harm his business. Since it would have to be repainted, the painter would not need to be paid for the first job, as one does not have to pay a yored whose work is not worth anything to him.

The case in question is a borderline case because the owner says is technically okay with the job if he’ll have to pay for it. The halacha in this case would be that he doesn’t have to pay the painter as an employee because he didn’t do the job he was asked to do; instead, he would only have to pay the value of having his office painted.

Even if the owner says that he isn’t interested in the job that was done and he wants the painter to undo it, that wouldn’t really be possible with a paint job, as this is something that cannot just be undone. If one can make such a claim in a case like this is subject to a machlokes Acharonim. The Nesivos Hamishpot says that if it isn’t possible to take the upgrade back, that claim cannot be made. The Chazon Ish disagrees and says that the owner always has the prerogative to make this claim and he can use it to refuse to pay for a paint job he doesn’t want.

If the case would go to Bais Din, the ruling would probably depend on who is the muchzik. If the painter hasn’t been paid yet, the owner would be the muchzik and he would be able to exempt himself from paying if Bais Din sees that there is substance to his claim. If the painter has already been paid, he would be the muchzik and he could keep the value of the paint job. 

  Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.org 

Rav Yosef Greenwald

Question: A broker approaches a real estate investor and says that he has information about a good deal. The investor replies that he can tell him the details if he’d like, but he should know that he does not plan on paying him. The broker introduces the deal and it ends up going through. He then asks for payment. Does the investor need to pay him?

Answer: The Acharonim say that even in a case of a field that is presumably asuya lita, if the property owner explicitly protests and tells the worker beforehand not to do the service and he does it anyway, he can’t be forced to accept him as his employee and he cannot be forced to pay him. In this case, however, the investor did want the service, he just didn’t want to pay for it. The Pischei Teshuva discusses this type of case and says if the individual does want the benefit but just wants it for free, it is not considered as if he protested and he would have to pay the worker if he received an obvious benefit.

We still would have to determine how much he would have to pay. One could argue that this case is comparable to a field that is aino asuya lita since the investor had no intention of paying for this service. Practically, to someone in real estate who has his own contacts and sources, this piece of information may not have been that valuable and isn’t worth that much. To someone new to the market who does not have many sources, this may be considered a hot tip that is very valuable. That all has to be taken into account.

On the other hand, because he actually did go ahead and make use of the service, perhaps it is comparable to a field that is asuya lita, in which case he’d have to pay the lowest end of the going rate for such service. In any case, the investor would certainly not have to pay the full price the broker charges because they didn’t originally make up a contract from the beginning. 

 Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.org 

Rav Yosef Greenwald

Question: After a heavy snowfall one winter day, I looked out my window and noticed my neighbor’s son shoveling my driveway without being asked. He then came to my door and asked for $50 as payment. Do I have to pay him?

Answer: We previously said that if someone is yored l’toch sadeh chaveiro, the property owner has to pay the value of the improvement to his property. The Gemara makes a distinction between a case where the field is “asuya lita” (set to be planted) and “aino asuya lita” (not set to be planted). Asuya lita means that everyone knows that the property owner is planning on hiring someone to plant his field at this time. Consequently, if someone steps in and does it, even if he was not contracted to do so, he becomes the de facto employee of the property owner and he must be paid as if he had been hired for the job. Similarly, if someone would know that a homeowner is looking for a painter to paint his house and he steps in and does it, he must be paid as an employee of the homeowner.

This does not mean that the homeowner has to pay whatever amount the worker asks for; rather, he must pay the lowest end of what is considered a reasonable amount for that job. In this case, that would mean that if it was known that the homeowner was going to hire someone to shovel his driveway, he would have to pay the neighbor’s child the lowest end of the standard cost for such a job.

Whereas, in a case where a field is “aino asuya lita”, meaning that the owner was not necessarily planning on hiring anyone to plant his field, the worker who took it upon himself to plant is not considered his employee. In this case, the homeowner only pays for the value added to his property. This means that if the homeowner was planning on shoveling his driveway himself, he would not have to pay the neighbor’s son for the value of the job. He would only have to pay him the amount of money he would be willing to pay to save himself the effort of not having to shovel the driveway himself.

 Questions? Comments? We love feedback! Email us at info@baishavaad.org 

Rav Yosef Greenwald

Question: A roofer was hired to install an attic fan. Unfortunately, he went to the wrong address and installed it in the wrong house. He sends a bill to the house where he installed the fan. Does the homeowner who never asked for the fan have to pay for it?

Answer: When the Gemara speaks about cases of “nehene”, it typically is speaking about when one person takes something from someone else. In this case, the homeowner isn’t taking the fan from anyone else; rather, he had it foisted on him. This is, therefore, not a case of nehene.

Instead, this would be a case of “yored l’sadeh chaveiro”. This refers to a Gemara in Bava Metziah where someone goes into his friend’s field and plants a tree or does any form of work that upgrades the property, without being asked to do so. The halacha in such a case is that if the homeowner wants to keep the upgrade, he would have to pay a certain amount, but he would not have to pay the full value of the service. Since he did not contract the worker to work in his field, he doesn’t have to pay for the job as if he had. Instead, he only has to pay the amount that his property went up in value as a result of the upgrade, which is a relatively small amount.

Additionally, he cannot be forced to accept the addition to his field, so he can tell the worker to take back the upgrade he made to his property. In this case, that would mean that he can theoretically tell the worker to take back the fan and fix the roof to be the way it was before. If he makes this request, it may not be worthwhile for the roofer to do all that extra work and he may just decide to leave it there for free.