Debbie and Alex were dating for months until the big day finally came, and the two were engaged to be married. After a joyous engagement party, the preparations for the wedding began. Debbie’s parents put a $5,000 down payment on a hall, and prepaid the florist $2,000. Other expenses included $2,000 to reserve a photographer, and $1,000 for invitations. Thereafter, the parents met to finalize the day-to-day finances of the couple, and unfortunately, the conversation resulted in a heated argument. Alex’s parents claimed that they were told by the matchmaker that the bride’s parents were willing to contribute to the financial support of the couple for at least the first few years of marriage. Debbie’s parents responded that no such agreement was made. For the next few days the couple’s parents tried to negotiate the matter, but to no avail. Eventually, Alex’s parents called off the engagement, and Debbie was nothing less than devastated by the news. Debbie’s parents summoned Alex’s parents to Bet Din claiming to collect a total of $22,000. The list of expenses included a rental fee of $2,000 for the hall of the engagement party, the money spent on the wedding preparations, which amounted to at least the sum of $10,000, and $10,000 in monetary compensation for their daughter’s disgrace caused by the broken engagement. Alex’s parents refused to pay the $22,000 claim, on the grounds that they only agreed to the engagement based on Debbie’s parent’s willingness to provide financial assistance. They added that, in any event, they should not be held fully responsible for the unfortunate turn of events, as Debbie’s parents are also responsible for the break-up. Furthermore, their son Alex was as well emotionally pained from the break-up, and although they sympathize with Debbie’s shame, their son is suffering as well.
How should the Bet Din rule, and why?
Torah Law
According to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, one who terminates an engagement to be married, is generally liable for all expenditures incurred in preparation of the wedding. Although several halachic authorities exempt the cancelling party from responsibility, nevertheless, in instances in which a bride and groom are of Sephardic origin, a Bet Din will exact payment in accordance with the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch. The rationale behind this ruling is that after a couple is engaged to be married, it is considered accepted practice to voluntarily prepare for the wedding. Hence, it is viewed from a legal standpoint as if the cancelling party already gave consent or even explicit instruction for all standard expenditures. Upon terminating the engagement to be married; after giving such consent to the expenses, one is liable for the loss sustained to the other party.
Needless to say, in the event one of the couple conceals information in order to facilitate the engagement, such as failing to disclose a medical defect or the like, the terminating party on account of such claims is absolved of all liability.
According to Torah law, it is a husband’s requirement to assume the responsibility of support of his spouse. Hence, unless stipulated prior to the engagement that the groom anticipates monetary support from the bride’s father for their daily expenses, the groom is to bear the burden of support. In the event the groom terminates an engagement due to a lack of a financial commitment from the bride’s father, and no clear contractual obligation exists, the groom is to be held liable for all expenditures incurred in the interim.
Nearly all terminated engagements are the result of a mutual decision of both the families involved. This is so, since once the fighting commences, unnecessary words are exchanged causing damage and insult to all parties involved. Although presently both parties may be unwilling to go forward with the wedding, a Bet Din will probe into the specifics of the situation to determine who triggered off the dispute and ultimately caused the termination of the upcoming marriage. The party who unlawfully initiated the quarrel is liable for the expenses sustained until the breakup.
By rule of the Shulhan Aruch, one who causes embarrassment and anguish to another is liable to pay for the damage he inflicted. The anguish is compounded if one’s reputation is harmed, and the regard and confidence in which a person is held decreases. Leading halachic authorities throughout Jewish history were most definitely sensitive to these modes of damage, as elaborate rulings dating back to the era of the Mishnah impose liability on an offender. Nevertheless, various restrictions apply before determining liability. By rule of the Mishnah, only if an offender intentionally defames another, is he required to provide compensation. Commonly, after an engagement is terminated, the victim of the unfortunate turn of events suffers a degree of embarrassment. In such instances it is questionable whether one is liable for damages. On the one hand, the terminating of the engagement was done intentionally, and for the benefit of the offender, yet on the other hand there was no malicious intent to inflict pain. Since both views have halachic credibility, a Bet Din is likely to formulate a compromise and request of the victim to pardon the offender in exchange for satisfactory monetary compensation.
VERDICT: Make Amends
The Bet Din submitted a decision to obligate Alex to pay a sum of $16,000 in compensation for Debbie’s claims. As mentioned in Torah law, since Alex did not clearly stipulate prior to his engagement that he anticipated financial assistance from Debbie’s father, he is liable for the wedding expenses after terminating the engagement. After contacting the matchmaker, it became evident that Debbie’s father never committed to two years of support and was somewhat reluctant when the proposition was suggested. Furthermore, the parties attempted to negotiate an agreement in which Debbie’s father offered a modest monthly sum, however Alex rejected the offer as the funds were insufficient. Without a clear financial commitment from Debbie’s father prior to the engagement, Alex may not demand thereafter a specific amount towards financial support. Alex triggered off the dispute and ultimately caused the termination of the upcoming marriage, making him liable for the $12,000 wasted on wedding expenses. (The sum of $12,000 is subject to reduction, in the event the caterer or service suppliers are willing to return a percentage of their deposits.) In addition, the Bet Din awarded Debbie $4000 as compensation for the anguish of her embarrassment, contingent on her pardoning Alex for the pain she suffered. As mentioned in Torah law, some halachic authorities exempt Alex from payment for the embarrassment he caused Debbie, since he did not intentionally or maliciously offend her. Nevertheless, there is halachic credibility for Debbie’s claim, and a compromise was formulated enabling Debbie to forgive her grievances. Alex’s claim that he was also suffering was rejected, since he was the initial cause of the breakup. Hence a total of $16,000 is to be paid by Alex to Debbie as compensation for damages.
YOU BE THE JUDGE
A Ponzi Scheme
Rich, interested in expanding his wealth, regularly invested in small wholesale corporations that needed capital. His latest investment included buying fifty percent of Yoram’s textile company for 1.9 million dollars. Before purchasing, he reviewed all the accounting history of the company, and thereafter signed and transferred half the sum as his initial payment. Additionally, as part of the purchase agreement, Rich signed as a personal guarantor for a loan previously extended to the company in the amount of $375,000. Less than a month later, Rich discovered that the company he purchased from Yoram was a complete scam. Aside from the company’s accounting, which proved to be fraudulent, the company owed millions of dollars to private investors. Since the company did not generate a profit over the many years, Yoram habitually paid the investors their monthly dividends with the money of each new investor. When the Ponzi scheme became too overwhelming to control, Yoram fiendishly sold the company to Rich, and he presumably ran off to Argentina after being paid. Rich is presently attempting to press criminal charges against Yoram in secular court and is preoccupied in finding his whereabouts. The case brought before our Bet Din was the claim of Jack, the lender of the $375,000, versus Rich, who personally guaranteed the sum. Rich responded to Jack’s claim that since, in retrospect, his purchase of the company was null and void, he has no obligation to the creditors. Furthermore, Rich defended that the $375,000 debt was existent prior to his involvement in the company. He argued that just as he was swindled and suffered a financial loss, the creditors as well were to sustain their share in the damage. Jack presented to the Bet Din the guarantor document with Rich’s signature fixed to the bottom.
Is Rich obligated to pay Jack his $375,000 loan?
How should the Bet Din rule and why?
In Loving Memory of Vera Bat Carol, A”H