|
Fellow Weekly - Issue 93
WHAT'S THE LAW ™
|
|
Welcome to Fellow Weekly's
WHAT'S THE LAW?™
Encouraging intelligent and entertaining debate at your Shabbat table.
Fellow Weekly raises issues of business law and ethics through lively emails by featuring your real-life scenarios answered by our leading authorities and professionals. |
|
Breaking News!
Our Shuvi Hashulamit Textbook on Hashavat Aveidah and Life Issues published by Torah Umesorah will G-d Willing appear in Two Weeks
Become a PARTNER NOW! Do not miss this chance!
Email info@projectfellow.org for dedication availabilities TODAY!
To join this mailing list, please click here
or send an email to weekly@projectfellow.org with the word subscribe in the subject line
CLICK HERE FOR THIS ISSUE'S PDF
Click HERE to Donate to PROJECT FELLOW TODAY!
Together...for a better world
TO JOIN THE GROWING LIST OF SCHOOLS SCHEDULING TAILOR-MADE INTERACTIVE CLASSES KINDLY EMAIL info@projectfellow.org
|
|
CASE 193: Seem Stressed! - Based on a True Story
Aviva purchased a dress for $50.00 which needed alterations. She took it to Mrs. Adler the local seamstress. Mrs. Adler altered the dress appropriately and Aviva wore it twice thereafter.
Subsequently, Aviva realized that she needed the dress to be let out by the seams. She purchased material for $14.00 and returned to Mrs. Adler one Tuesday.
Aviva explained to her that she needed the dress on Thursday of that week, as she wanted to wear it for an occasion out of town on Sunday night(her engagement party). Aviva described to her exactly what she wanted done to the dress and how she wanted it to look. She asked her not to add any flares but to make sure that the dress was straight. The two agreed on a price ($85.00) and Mrs. Adler gave her word that although it would be a difficult task, she would have it ready for Thursday.
Aviva called Mrs. Adler on Thursday afternoon to see if it was a good time to pick up the dress. Mrs. Adler responded that quite frankly it would be an unfruitful excursion on Aviva's part as she had not started working on it.
Aviva was outraged! She reminded Mrs. Adler that they agreed that she would have it ready for her by Thursday because she needed it for an event...
Mrs. Adler apologized but reassured Aviva that she can have it ready for Sunday noon, and that she should stop by on Friday to try on the dress.
Aviva came in on Friday intending to try on the dress.
Horrified was an understatement!
The seamstress had cut the dress to add the material, but she had not followed Aviva's directives! She added three flares instead of making it straight. And the hem...it was atrocious!
To make things better, Mrs. Adler was not in. Her worker was there in her stead. Aviva told her worker that the repair was not what she asked for and that she would never wear the dress like this. Something has to be done. The worker responded that she will try her best to fix what she can and that Aviva should come back on Sunday morning.
Aviva returned to Mrs. Adler on Sunday morning to try on the dress. It was still not far from Aviva's liking, but nothing more could be done.
Aviva was minus the material she bought and minus the dress- "It is absolutely not wearable like this", complained Aviva.
Mrs. Adler told Aviva that the dress looked beautiful on her, handed Aviva the altered dress and told her that she would have to charge her an additional thirty dollars because she had to pay her worker extra for staying longer and working on the dress.
"What audacity!" Aviva adamantly refused to pay her an extra thirty and even wondered whether she should pay her at all. She set forth four arguments. 1) They agreed upon an $85 cost in the beginning, 2) The worker only put in extra work because things were not done right the first time, 3) The style of the alterations were not what Aviva had requested and 4) Mrs. Adler did not have the dress ready on Thursday as originally promised.
1) Was Aviva obligated to pay her the $85 for the work that was done, even though it was not what we agreed she would do, and it was not ready in time?
2) Is Mrs. Adler responsible to pay Aviva back for the material that she bought to add to the dress? ($14.00)
3) Is Mrs. Adler responsible to pay for part of the cost of the dress since she rendered it not wearable anymore?
What is the law?
Submitted by: L.G.
Please email us with your comments and answers at weekly@projectfellow.org.
Read next week's issue for the answer!
|
|
Last Week's Case
Case # 192 The Baffled Teacher
Experienta Docet! (Experience teaches! )
As the eagerly awaited Passover season was rapidly arriving, students and teachers alike, seemed to have been counting down the hours towards liberation. The finale of the wait was topped with a virtual mini-course in janitorial skills, as the student body and teachers staff avidly cleaned through their cubbies, lockers, and desks.
Going through her desk drawers, Mrs. Linda Gold, the highly acclaimed A-Track sixth grade boys Latin roots teacher was confronted with confiscated symbolisms of her annus mirabulis (wonderful year) .
A ping pong racket, a water blaster, a car magazine, a heavy duty flashlight, a megaphone, a GPS, a hardball, some darts, a blackberry, some rather dangerous vestiges of the beginnings of an armamentarium (arsenal), and - an unfamiliar bottle of lighter fluid apparently confiscated by Mrs. Perns, her beloved substitute.
1. Is a teacher permitted to temporarily confiscate tools of obstructions to the classroom?
2. Is a teacher permitted to confiscate tools of obstructions ad infinitum?
3. Is there a difference between a regular teacher and a substitute?
4. What should they do with dangerous substances?
What is the law?
|
|
The Answer
We present you here with a concise ruling. For a more intricate elucidation, please see the detailed explanation below.
See detailed explanation
|
|
Detailed Explanation
The Baffled Teacher implicates the following six laws.
1. It is forbidden to steal temporarily with the intention of subsequently returning the article [Choshen Mishpat 346: 1] 2. It is forbidden to steal from a minor [Choshen Mishpat 346: 2] 3. A parent or teacher may not use their position of power to indiscriminately inflict unnecessary pain on a child. 4. One who is entrusted with the discipline of a child may not shirk his or her responsibilities [Mishlei 22:6 ]. 5. So long as the pedagogue tactic is effective, a parent or one who is responsible for the development of a child may (and at times should) cause the child pain while disciplining him or her [Rambam Hilchos De'os 6: 10]. 6. Similarly, one who is responsible for the child's development may confiscate articles obstructing the child's development [Pischei Choshen Hilchos Gezeilah 1: 17]
Application
As individuals responsible for the child's development, a teacher or substitute may in good-faith confiscate from their students tools of obstruction. They may only keep them ad infinitum if returning them would be destructive to their students' development. Otherwise, they would be required to return the belongings to their due owners after the "lesson is learned." Similarly, dangerous articles should not be returned to the children.
Another thought to consider is that when parents send their children to school, they understand that the staff needs to keep control of the classroom and school and in their effort will remove tools of obstruction. Obviously, this does not give staff members to irresponsibly and indiscriminately confiscate belongings of children.s long as Mrs.Green or adult members of her household are home, she is permitted to allow others to use items which she borrowed.
It is an act of negligence to vacuum without picking up articles from the floor which could damage the machine.
If however, the articles which caused damage were in an unexpected place, and could not have been seen, the damage ensued is viewed as damages incurred in the course of normal use. Consequently, the borrower is absolved from paying for such damages.
Thus, if Bracha was negligent, she is liable to pay for the damages. Otherwise, Mrs. Stein would swallow the loss.
Answered by: The Yesharim Research Center
|
|
|
|
|
Note:
Although we aim to present the correct ruling, varying details are always important and decisively influence every individual case. Our readers are thus encouraged to present their personal cases to a competent authority and not solely rely on the information provided.
Together...for a better world
You can help build a better world. Just invite your friends and family to subscribe to
Fellow Weekly.
To join this mailing list, please click here
or send an email to weekly@projectfellow.org with the word subscribe in the subject line. | |
A project of
Yesharim Foundation for Ethical Law
105/21 Sanhedria Murchevet, Jerusalem
ISRAEL 02-581-6337
USA 845-335-5516 |
|
