logo
Project Fellow
 

 Fellow Weekly -  Issue 150

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.
  

Dedicated for Refuah Sheleima for 

Adina bas Chana, Chana bas Basya 

 

  

 

 

 

THIS WEEK'S PDF 

Dear Friends,

With Hashem's help, we present you this week with our 150th Issue.

We thank you for following us and for your support since our inception. We encourage your input and involvement in helping us expand our global reach. 

Your continued partnership with us will enable us to continue our sacred work.

 

 

Please click here to support Project Fellow.

 

 

  

CASE 266/267: Subtenant Evictions & Stranded Passengers
  

* Millford & Barnum, once a 20-attorney litigation and transactional firm, presented an "aura of success" with its display of contemporary art adorning the walls of its Midtown offices; pricey Knoll and Bertoia chairs and personalized Millford & Barnum cups and napkins; and on-site IT staff, said lawyers who sublet space from the firm.

Both the Grant firm and LoPreto , another subtenant on the building's ninth floor, had agreements with Millford & Barnum to use their office space for three years with a two-year renewal option.

But only four months after settling in at 600 Lexington Ave., the subleasees were told by Millford & Barnum that it was defaulting on its lease, its partners were departing and the subtenants would have to leave or be evicted, according to a lawsuit against Millford & Barnum.

"If we are required to move less than six months after announcing with pride our relocation to beautiful space, and explaining and training our clients to come to a new location, we will be perceived as slipshod in managing our own affairs, thereby throwing into serious doubt our professional ability to manage and advise the legal affairs of others," Grant says in court papers.

The Grant firm and solo practitioner Virginia LoPreto, are suing Millford & Barnum, claiming the firm induced them to rent space without disclosing that it was behind on its rent and at risk of dissolution.

Millford & Barnum responded that they never engaged in any fraudulent conduct toward the Grant lawyers and LoPreto and at the present, they are unable to fulfill their commitment. (The NY Law Journal October 15th 2012)

*

* "The Hungarian national airline Malev has folded after its financial situation became unsustainable.

"After 66 years of almost continuous operation Malev will no longer take off," the report said.

Chief executive Lorant Limburger said the immediate reason for the collapse was the demand for upfront payments by its suppliers.

Prime Minister Viktor Orban said on state radio that two Malev planes were still overseas, one in Tel Aviv, the other in the Irish Republic.

The premier said those planes were not allowed to take off because of Malev's debts.

Having stopped over in Ireland, Irving was stranded (BBC).


  • According to Torah law what are Gersten's liabilities towards Grant? What are Malev's responsibilities towards Irving.
  • May Gersten demand a refund for the first four months? May Irving demand a refund for the first leg of the trip?
 
What's the Law?

  

Please email us with your comments, questions, and answers at [email protected].

  

 

  

CASE 265: Costly Crossings
 
Having requested a metered ride, instead of fixing a price with the monit driver, quickly evolved into an increasingly costly picking for the Lewenstein party, as the pre-holiday bumper to bumper traffic snarling through the narrow Jerusalem streets began to sap their pockets. After crawling for ten minutes, the traffic began to disperse and the upcoming traffic circle turned fairly empty. The monit driver revved up his engine and raced towards the circle.

 

Pushing her double stroller with two kids on her side, Mrs. Berger observed the episode. Reaching the intersection at about the same time that the taxi did, she wondered if it was noble for her to defer the right of way to the taxi and spare the Lewenstein's from incurring a more expensive ride.

What's the Law?

  

Please email us with your comments, questions, and answers at [email protected].

  

 

 

 

 

The Answer

 

We present you here with a concise ruling. For a more intricate elucidation, please see the detailed explanation below.  

 

If it is not too much of an inconvenience in doing so, it would be proper to allow the cab to go first.

  

  

  

Detailed Explanation    

 

 Costly Crossings invokes the following laws. 

 

1. Should a legitimate and legal struggle ensue between two parties over who should earn/save more money, a third party may offer to assist his/her friend or acquaintance. If both parties are equal strangers, we tell the third party to abstain from soliciting involvement. "How do you have the right to 'choose sides", why is A's blood redder than B's blood [Chofetz Chaim, Hilchos Rechilus, Be'er Mayim Chaim tziur 2:2].

2. Love your friend like yourself [Vayikra 19:18] as interpreted in the Talmud: Do not do to your friend that which you would not want done to you [Maseches Shabbos 31a]. Concern yourself with your neighbor's financial loss as though it was your own loss [Rambam Hilchos De'os 6:3].

3. While we cannot compel every individual to agree to concern him/herself with another's loss at the expense of incuring a considerable personal loss [Bava Metzia 33a], a person who is habitually overly concerned with him/herself will become greedy and will ultimately become needy. As such, each person must make an honest personal accounting when to place his/her personal concerns ahead of another's [ibid.] 

 

Application

 

Theoretically, one could argue - if the passenger and driver are legitimately battling over the end cost of the ride, the pedestrian should not get involved by giving up her right to cross in order to favor the passenger over the driver - unless the passenger is an acquaintance.

 

Instead, if she has the right of way, she should cross and allow for the driver to make more money off the ride.

 

However, since in real-life even the driver prefers a faster ride (as he hopes to pick up a new passenger as soon as possible, and make more money by beginning a new fare with its minimum initial charge), allowing the taxi to pass would benefit both the passenger as well as the driver.

 

As such, even if the pedestrian has the right of way, by allowing the taxi to go first, she fulfills the mitzvah of vehavta lereacha kamocha by saving the two from incurring a financial loss. If it is not a considerable inconvenience to do so, it is proper to defer the right of way to the taxi.

 

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 [email protected] with the word subscribe in the subject line

  

 

    

CLICK HERE to DONATE to PROJECT FELLOW TODAY!

   

 

A project of
Yesharim Foundation for Ethical LawView our profile on LinkedIn
 
105/21 Sanhedria Murchevet, Jerusalem
ISRAEL 02-581-6337
USA 845-335-5516

Join Our Mailing List


Fellow - Yesharim | 105/21 Sanhedria Murchevet | Jerusalem | Israel