|
Fellow Weekly - Issue 99
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.
|
|
CLICK HERE FOR THIS ISSUE'S PDF
Tuesday Lunch and Learn at Hebrew University Givat Ram Campus. Join Us!
|
|
CASE 199: Junk Jack or Steinway!
"Good Morning Honey. Happy retirement! After a month of celebrating, it's time to roll up your sleeves. I've been meaning to ask you for almost a decade to please clean out our storage garage. Things have been piling up for thirty some odd years and its clearance time today! Your breakfast eggs will be ready - to your liking, after you contact a scrap collector. "
Bernie Stein of Ackerman Rd. in Saddle River, NJ obediently searched on-line for a local scrap collector. Junk Jack offered to come down for fifty dollars, clear out the garage, leave it spotless, and keep the junk, hoping to pawn off as much scrap as he could.
Bernie Stein's neighbor Nancy Neuberger observed with much interest as Junk Jack began hauling out a dilapidated Steinway piano. With a passion for music, Nancy googled "piano restoration" and "Steinway Pianos" on her blackberry.
Based upon her initial research, considering the piano was a Victorian style Model: LSize: 4'5 built in: 1923, it seemed to her that after restoration costs of $5000, the piano would be worth $25,000.
She surmised that Junk Jack was clueless as to the potential value of the piano and offered him $350 cash for the piano - to which Junk Jack pushed her up to $450.
That afternoon, Lindberg Restorations showed up to Ackerman Rd., looked over the Piano's Action, Keybed, Pedal Systems, Soundboard, Strings, Pinblock, Harp and Cabinet found an envelope inside with $1000 cash and told Nancy that the piece was so damaged that for all intents and purposes, they would need to construct a new piano and her $450 outlay was an investment spent .
Nancy contacted Junk Jack and demanded her $450 returned. Junk Jack responded "It's a done deal Madam. You took a chance, but I'll take the envelope".
May Nancy rescind on the deal?
Who gets the envelope, The Stein's, Junk Jack, Nancy, or Lindberg Restorations.
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 # 198: Drafted n' Duped!
With apartments in high demand, Ray Field saw the following advertisement in the DC area Classifieds. "Airy, comfortable, spacious apt. contact present tenant Joe Berger ... must buy existing used furniture.
September 14th 1969... drafted! Dr. Ray Field, a young cardiologist in NY Beth Israel Medical was summoned to provide ongoing care to US army veterans in the Armed Forces Retirement Home Washington Campus.
Incredibly, Ray and his wife Carol received permission to live off campus, in walking distance from the nearby fledgling Summit Hill Ahavas Torah Synagogue.
Desperate for a place to live, Ray agreed to purchase the existing furniture from Joe Berger for $2,000 (buying power of $12,314.11 in 2011 see CPI Inflation calculator) . Berger then put Ray in contact with the landlord.
Ray forwarded 12 head checks to the landlord and intended to meet Berger as they pulled in to their new home.
Excited, though apprehensive about their new beginnings, Ray and Carol pulled up to their new home in Summit Hill, knocked on the door and were warmly greeted by Berger.
Carol took one look at the furniture and almost fainted! "Joe! This furniture is ten years old! It's not worth more than $500! We're taking the apartment and here's $500 for the furniture."
"Mrs. Field, Indeed this furniture is ten years old. But, I moved in here a year ago and the previous tenant forced me to purchase this furniture from him for $2000. I'm just passing down the rip off to you..."
◆
What's the Law?
|
|
The Answer
We present you here with a concise ruling. For a more intricate elucidation, please see the detailed explanation below.
The Fields may take the apartment and do not have to uphold their verbal commitment with the previous tenant regarding the furniture (see detailed explanation). |
|
Detailed Explanation
Joe Berger overcharged the Field's four times the market value simply because he was ripped off last year.
This episode transpired in 1969. There were no digital imaging, e-mail, etc. There was no way for the Fields to have "seen" the merchandise before their consent. Instead, the Field's reasonably assumed that while the furniture was advertised as used, the $2000 was a fair market value for the quality they were to receive .
In addition, the difference in price and true value was so immense that it could be viewed as though the Field's did not receive the type of merchandise they agreed to purchase. As such, the Field's need not "keep their end of the deal either" [Choshen Mishpat 233: 1].
Joe Berger wished to monopolize on the the opportunity. He was not appointed as an agent for his landlord. Instead, the Field's ultimately dealt directly with their landlord.
|
|
|
|
|
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
CLICK HERE to DONATE to PROJECT FELLOW TODAY!
|
|
A project of
Yesharim Foundation for Ethical Law
105/21 Sanhedria Murchevet, Jerusalem
ISRAEL 02-581-6337
USA 845-335-5516 |
|
