|
The Answer:
Rafael is absolved from paying for the Mink..
Detailed Explanation
In-law or Outlaw invokes the following Halachos.
T.L. C. Trustee Liability Chart
|
|
|
Negligence
|
Theft/Loss not due to negligence
|
Unforeseen &
incontrollable accidents
|
Damage in course of normal use
| |
1. no benefit
|
Unpaid trustee
|
Liable
|
Absolved
|
Absolved
|
Liable
(may not use it)
| |
2a. partial benefit
|
Paid trustee
|
Liable
|
Liable
|
Absolved
|
Liable
(may not use it)
| |
2b. partial benefit
|
Renter
|
Liable
|
Liable
|
Absolved
|
Absolved
| |
3. absolute benefit
|
Borrower
|
Liable
|
Liable
|
Liable
|
Absolved
|
The Paid trustee, or shomer sachar, has limited benefit from the service provided.
While he/she benefits from the payment for his/her supervision of the property, he/she nonetheless is not authorized to make personal use of it. With limited benefit, he/she correspondingly assumes limited liability. In exchange for the payment that his/her service demands, he/she accepts the responsibility of protecting the property from theft and loss and is liable to pay in the event of such an occurrence.
In contrast to a borrower who has complete benefit from the article and as such is liable even for uncontrollable accidents (i.e. armed robbers), the shomer sachar is absolved from paying for damages or losses due to unforeseen incontrollable accidents [Shemos. 22:9-11].
The Renter or a socher, also has limited benefit from the article.
While personal use of the property is authorized, he/she pays a fee. Again, limited benefit corresponds to limited liability. His/her limited liabilities mirror those of the paid trustee. He/she accepts the responsibility of protecting the property from theft and loss and is liable to pay in the event of such an occurrence. However he/she is absolved from paying for damages or losses due to unforeseen incontrollable accidents [Choshen Mishpat 307:1].
Application
A took home merchandise from a craftsman to present to his in-laws and stipulated that he/she will pay for the purchase in full should the in-laws accept the gift; and if they do not, he/she will pay the craftsman a fee for using the merchandise to please the in-laws. An unforeseen incontrollable accident occurred upon returning the merchandise to the seller. Once the in-laws reject the purchase, the customer transforms into a renter, paying for the ability to use the craftsman's article; a whereby the customer is absolved from paying for losses or damages that were beyond his control (armed robbers).
If however, the incontrollable phenomenon would take place en route to the in-laws, the customer would be liable to pay for the value of the purchase. As in his/her mind there is reasonable expectation that the in-laws will accept the gift, we deem him/her as a consumer who bought the article with a condition, who in turn, must pay for the merchandise regardless of whether it suffers any damage from an outside force after legally acquiring it [Choshen Mishpat 186: 1 Nesivos 1 Biurim]
| 
