|
Fellow Weekly - Issue 96
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. |
|
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!
|
|
CASE 196: Dollar Ditch!
After marrying off their youngest daughter, the Fischer's from Lawrence focused on actualizing their life-long dream of emigrating to Israel. Dr. Arnold Fischer planned to continue his practice on a part-time basis as a diagnostic radiologist for Beth Israel Medical Center, while Mrs. Fischer was set on volunteering as a social worker for terror victim families.
The two decided to take a pilot trip for year and rent a studio apartment on Shimshon Street in Ramat Beit Shemesh, as they shopped around for a suitable neighborhood and villa to purchase.
While planning to move in on August 19th , 2009, the Fischer's signed a lease with Doron Nadlan for $1,000 a month. They signed three months in advance on May 18th , 2009 and forwarded a security check in dollars as well. On May 18th , 2009 the shekel -dollar exchange rate was 4.169 NIS to the dollar.
As scheduled, the Fischer's moved in on August 19th , and while overcoming numerous initial challenges began to acclimate to their new environment.
On Oct. 15th, 2009 Dr. Fischer received the following shocking email from Nadlan.
" Dear Dr. and Mrs. Fischer,
As the shekel-dollar exchange rate unexpectedly plummeted to 3.69 NIS to the dollar, be informed that I am switching your rent over to shekels and expect 4169 NIS a month."
Doron Nadler
What is the law?
Please email us with your comments and answers at weekly@projectfellow.org.
Read next week's issue for the answer!
.
|
|
Case # 195: Its a Boy!
Mrs. Greenfield hired Doula Fried, to assist her in delivering her newborn. Early, Tuesday morning, Mrs. Greenfield sensed that the awaited time was imminently approaching. In general though, Mrs. Greenfield upheld a history of elongated ordeals.
In contact throughout the morning with Duola Fried; she was assured that history was repeating itself and time was on her side. The thought of hours of work simply tired her out. ...when suddenly her room was filled with the delightful charm of promising life. Doula Fried missed the birth!
Is Mrs. Greenfield required to pay Duola Fried?
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.
Unless Duola Fried has a specific policy, Mrs. Greenfield is exempt from paying Fried (see detailed explanation). |
|
Detailed Explanation
Background
Mrs. Greenfield hired Duola Fried to perform a service. Although Duolas often provide guidance to their clients far before rendering the actual service, Duolas generally charge only for aiding the delivery. In Mrs. Greenfield's case, Duola Fried did not even begin providing her "chargeable" services nor did she begin traveling to the "work site". Secondly, there is a calculated risk in the field, that the Duola may well miss the birth.
It's a Boy implicates the following four laws.
1. An employer who irresponsibly cancels the post after a laborer either turned down alternative work (and can no longer find replacement work) or else, began working or traveling to the job site (even if he/she did not turn down alternative employment) is required to compensate the laborer for the wages he/she expected to earn [Choshen Mishpat 333: 2; 334:1].
2. An employee who prefers to earn reduced wages and remain idle, rather than work hard and earn more, can only claim that "reduced fair" from the employer [Choshen Mishpat 333: 2; 334:1].
3. When new circumstances render the job unnecessary, an employer is absolved from compensating a laborer for services not received, if the laborer could have responsibly foreseen such occurrences [Choshen Mishpat 334: 1].
4. An employer who must cancel the post due to unexpected circumstances need not pay for services not received (though must reimburse him/her for expenditures invested by the employee en route to the work site) [Nesivos Hamishpat 333:5].
Application
Doula Fried did not invest expenditures, begin traveling, or begin rendering services. Most of all, Doula could have foreseen the eventuality of missing the birth. Mrs. Greenfield is absolved from paying her for her services unless there is a predetermined protocol for such eventualities. |
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
