The Case
The Wrath of Milton
On the other hand, in a similar ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a customer who purchases goods on consignment is liable in a case of unforeseeable damage – even for merchandise that is undesirable. Even though the customer did not finalize the sale and maintains the right to return the undesirable goods at his own leisure, he is nevertheless responsible for all damage.
Leading halachic authorities explain that although buying merchandise on consignment bears some resemblance to picking up a product for inspection, there is a clear distinction. While in both instances the buyers are not under any obligation and may return the goods, one who simply picks up a product for inspection is merely a potential buyer, and the pending transaction is dependent on his decision. Hence, he is only deemed liable for damages if the product is desirable in the market, since only then can we assume that it is likely he will have ultimately made the purchase. By contrast, one who agrees to sell merchandise on consignment has effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintains the right to return the goods, he already owns them and is liable for all damages until their return. Other leading halachic authorities differ with the above ruling and exempt a buyer of merchandise on consignment in instances of unforeseeable damage – unless the merchandise was desirable and could have been readily sold.
Nevertheless, some restrictions do apply. First, the potential buyer assumes responsibility for damages only if the product is so desirable in the market that it could have easily been sold to another party. If, however, the product is one that is not readily sold, the owner may not collect payment for damages caused by an unforeseeable occurrence. For example, if the product is an outdated electronic device, then, in contrast to the situation mentioned above, it is considered a benefit to the seller that the buyer is even considering making the purchase, and thus the buyer is not considered a borrower when inspecting the product and does not bear liability for damages caused by circumstances beyond his control. It is important to note that this rule can be subject to customary store policies, and therefore one must consult a competent halachic authority before deciding whether a customer is liable for damages.
On the other hand, in a similar ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a customer who purchases goods on consignment is liable in a case of unforeseeable damage – even for merchandise that is undesirable. Even though the customer did not finalize the sale and maintains the right to return the undesirable goods at his own leisure, he is nevertheless responsible for all damage.
Leading halachic authorities explain that although buying merchandise on consignment bears some resemblance to picking up a product for inspection, there is a clear distinction. While in both instances the buyers are not under any obligation and may return the goods, one who simply picks up a product for inspection is merely a potential buyer, and the pending transaction is dependent on his decision. Hence, he is only deemed liable for damages if the product is desirable in the market, since only then can we assume that it is likely he will have ultimately made the purchase. By contrast, one who agrees to sell merchandise on consignment has effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintains the right to return the goods, he already owns them and is liable for all damages until their return. Other leading halachic authorities differ with the above ruling and exempt a buyer of merchandise on consignment in instances of unforeseeable damage – unless the merchandise was desirable and could have been readily sold.
Many of the Torah precepts relevant to this issue have been adopted by the non-Jewish world. The Uniform Commercial Code [UCC 2-326 (1) and (2)] differentiates between a sale contingent on the buyer’s approval, and a sale on consignment; goods held on approval are not subject to claims by the buyer’s creditors, while goods held for sale on consignment are subject to such claims while in the buyer’s possession. Our Torah, brought to us by Moshe thousands of years ago, has set the framework for all judicial systems to emulate, for the wisdom of our Torah bears the truth of Hashem’s justice. It is our Torah obligation that all monetary disputes with fellow Jews be decided by a rabbinical court of law, where we can be assured that justice is based on Torah law.
Sources: Shulhan Aruch Hoshen Mishpat 200:11, Ibid 186:2; Kenneset Hagedola, Hagahot Bet Yosef 186:3; Netivot Hamishpat 186:1; Even Haezel Hilchot Mechira 4; Kehilot Yaakov, Nedarim 24; West Business Law, ninth edition, pg.390.
VERDICT: The Calm after the Storm
Our Bet Din ruled in favor of Harry, awarding him a $7,000 claim against Stanley. As mentioned in Torah Law, since Stanley agreed to sell the merchandise on consignment, he effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintained the right to return the goods, in the interim, for all practical purposes, they belonged to him, deeming him liable for all damages. This ruling was decided by our Bet Din after ascertaining that the merchandise in question was merchantable and very desirable in the commercial market. Hence, this decision concurs with the opinion of all halachic authorities. Nevertheless, the Bet Din suggested that Harry consider Stanley’s general financial difficulties and settle with him for a smaller sum. Harry complied and the two settled the matter peacefully.
In Loving Memory of Vera Bat Carol, A”H
YOU BE THE JUDGE
Cookies and… Scream
Moe and Cindy were returning home Saturday night after spending the weekend with Cindy’s parents. They stopped off at a local ice cream parlor and purchased ice cream cones that they ate in their car in the dark. As Cindy got to the bottom of the cone, she reached with her fingers to the bottom of the cone to eat what seemed to be the last chunk of chocolate. After biting into it, Cindy began screaming and discharged from her mouth a sizeable roach. Utterly repulsed, she repeatedly vomited. After tending to his wife, Moe stormed into the ice cream store and berated the store owner for the incident, demanding compensation for his wife’s mental and emotional anguish. The store owner was sincerely apologetic but refused to resolve the matter that evening. Moe and Cindy filed a written complaint to our Bet Din, claiming $10,000 in compensation. In Bet Din, the store owner explained that his store had been operating for over nine years and he never encountered a complaint. Furthermore, he recently passed an inspection with the board of health. He felt that the incident was due to circumstances beyond his control and that he should not be liable for the unfortunate experience.
How should the Bet Din rule, in favor of Cindy or the store owner and why?
According to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a potential buyer who picks up a product for inspection is liable for all damage caused while in his possession. The logic behind this ruling is that since a potential buyer can benefit from the right to inspect the product at no cost, he receives a legal status similar to that of a borrower. Hence, he is liable even for damages caused by circumstances beyond his control.
Nevertheless, some restrictions do apply. First, the potential buyer assumes responsibility for damages only if the product is so desirable in the market that it could have easily been sold to another party. If, however, the product is one that is not readily sold, the owner may not collect payment for damages caused by an unforeseeable occurrence. For example, if the product is an outdated electronic device, then, in contrast to the situation mentioned above, it is considered a benefit to the seller that the buyer is even considering making the purchase, and thus the buyer is not considered a borrower when inspecting the product and does not bear liability for damages caused by circumstances beyond his control. It is important to note that this rule can be subject to customary store policies, and therefore one must consult a competent halachic authority before deciding whether a customer is liable for damages.
On the other hand, in a similar ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a customer who purchases goods on consignment is liable in a case of unforeseeable damage – even for merchandise that is undesirable. Even though the customer did not finalize the sale and maintains the right to return the undesirable goods at his own leisure, he is nevertheless responsible for all damage.
Leading halachic authorities explain that although buying merchandise on consignment bears some resemblance to picking up a product for inspection, there is a clear distinction. While in both instances the buyers are not under any obligation and may return the goods, one who simply picks up a product for inspection is merely a potential buyer, and the pending transaction is dependent on his decision. Hence, he is only deemed liable for damages if the product is desirable in the market, since only then can we assume that it is likely he will have ultimately made the purchase. By contrast, one who agrees to sell merchandise on consignment has effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintains the right to return the goods, he already owns them and is liable for all damages until their return. Other leading halachic authorities differ with the above ruling and exempt a buyer of merchandise on consignment in instances of unforeseeable damage – unless the merchandise was desirable and could have been readily sold.
Many of the Torah precepts relevant to this issue have been adopted by the non-Jewish world. The Uniform Commercial Code [UCC 2-326 (1) and (2)] differentiates between a sale contingent on the buyer’s approval, and a sale on consignment; goods held on approval are not subject to claims by the buyer’s creditors, while goods held for sale on consignment are subject to such claims while in the buyer’s possession. Our Torah, brought to us by Moshe thousands of years ago, has set the framework for all judicial systems to emulate, for the wisdom of our Torah bears the truth of Hashem’s justice. It is our Torah obligation that all monetary disputes with fellow Jews be decided by a rabbinical court of law, where we can be assured that justice is based on Torah law.
Sources: Shulhan Aruch Hoshen Mishpat 200:11, Ibid 186:2; Kenneset Hagedola, Hagahot Bet Yosef 186:3; Netivot Hamishpat 186:1; Even Haezel Hilchot Mechira 4; Kehilot Yaakov, Nedarim 24; West Business Law, ninth edition, pg.390.
VERDICT: The Calm after the Storm
Our Bet Din ruled in favor of Harry, awarding him a $7,000 claim against Stanley. As mentioned in Torah Law, since Stanley agreed to sell the merchandise on consignment, he effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintained the right to return the goods, in the interim, for all practical purposes, they belonged to him, deeming him liable for all damages. This ruling was decided by our Bet Din after ascertaining that the merchandise in question was merchantable and very desirable in the commercial market. Hence, this decision concurs with the opinion of all halachic authorities. Nevertheless, the Bet Din suggested that Harry consider Stanley’s general financial difficulties and settle with him for a smaller sum. Harry complied and the two settled the matter peacefully.
In Loving Memory of Vera Bat Carol, A”H
YOU BE THE JUDGE
Cookies and… Scream
Moe and Cindy were returning home Saturday night after spending the weekend with Cindy’s parents. They stopped off at a local ice cream parlor and purchased ice cream cones that they ate in their car in the dark. As Cindy got to the bottom of the cone, she reached with her fingers to the bottom of the cone to eat what seemed to be the last chunk of chocolate. After biting into it, Cindy began screaming and discharged from her mouth a sizeable roach. Utterly repulsed, she repeatedly vomited. After tending to his wife, Moe stormed into the ice cream store and berated the store owner for the incident, demanding compensation for his wife’s mental and emotional anguish. The store owner was sincerely apologetic but refused to resolve the matter that evening. Moe and Cindy filed a written complaint to our Bet Din, claiming $10,000 in compensation. In Bet Din, the store owner explained that his store had been operating for over nine years and he never encountered a complaint. Furthermore, he recently passed an inspection with the board of health. He felt that the incident was due to circumstances beyond his control and that he should not be liable for the unfortunate experience.
How should the Bet Din rule, in favor of Cindy or the store owner and why?
Stanley, a jobber, regularly buys and sells varied merchandise at a small profit. Upon striking a deal to purchase from Harry $7,000 worth of goods, the two agreed that the sale would be on consignment. Stanley stored the merchandise in his private garage, which was protected by a surveillance camera and a sophisticated alarm system. But when Hurricane Milton swept across the Southeast Coast, a tree fell on the garage, starting an electrical fire that caused permanent damage to the merchandise. Stanley immediately notified Harry of the unfortunate turn of events and told him that he had no intention of paying for the goods since they were bought on consignment. Harry did not respond to Stanley but rather summoned him to Bet Din claiming $7,000 in compensation for the lost merchandise. In Bet Din, Stanley explained that although the merchandise was lost while in his domain, by definition of consignment, Harry had retained ownership of the goods until they were sold. Since Harry was the owner of the merchandise, he is to sustain the loss. Harry defended his claim stating simply that while Stanley maintained the right to return the merchandise at any time, if he fails to return the goods for any reason, he is liable for payment.
According to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a potential buyer who picks up a product for inspection is liable for all damage caused while in his possession. The logic behind this ruling is that since a potential buyer can benefit from the right to inspect the product at no cost, he receives a legal status similar to that of a borrower. Hence, he is liable even for damages caused by circumstances beyond his control.
Nevertheless, some restrictions do apply. First, the potential buyer assumes responsibility for damages only if the product is so desirable in the market that it could have easily been sold to another party. If, however, the product is one that is not readily sold, the owner may not collect payment for damages caused by an unforeseeable occurrence. For example, if the product is an outdated electronic device, then, in contrast to the situation mentioned above, it is considered a benefit to the seller that the buyer is even considering making the purchase, and thus the buyer is not considered a borrower when inspecting the product and does not bear liability for damages caused by circumstances beyond his control. It is important to note that this rule can be subject to customary store policies, and therefore one must consult a competent halachic authority before deciding whether a customer is liable for damages.
On the other hand, in a similar ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a customer who purchases goods on consignment is liable in a case of unforeseeable damage – even for merchandise that is undesirable. Even though the customer did not finalize the sale and maintains the right to return the undesirable goods at his own leisure, he is nevertheless responsible for all damage.
Leading halachic authorities explain that although buying merchandise on consignment bears some resemblance to picking up a product for inspection, there is a clear distinction. While in both instances the buyers are not under any obligation and may return the goods, one who simply picks up a product for inspection is merely a potential buyer, and the pending transaction is dependent on his decision. Hence, he is only deemed liable for damages if the product is desirable in the market, since only then can we assume that it is likely he will have ultimately made the purchase. By contrast, one who agrees to sell merchandise on consignment has effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintains the right to return the goods, he already owns them and is liable for all damages until their return. Other leading halachic authorities differ with the above ruling and exempt a buyer of merchandise on consignment in instances of unforeseeable damage – unless the merchandise was desirable and could have been readily sold.
Many of the Torah precepts relevant to this issue have been adopted by the non-Jewish world. The Uniform Commercial Code [UCC 2-326 (1) and (2)] differentiates between a sale contingent on the buyer’s approval, and a sale on consignment; goods held on approval are not subject to claims by the buyer’s creditors, while goods held for sale on consignment are subject to such claims while in the buyer’s possession. Our Torah, brought to us by Moshe thousands of years ago, has set the framework for all judicial systems to emulate, for the wisdom of our Torah bears the truth of Hashem’s justice. It is our Torah obligation that all monetary disputes with fellow Jews be decided by a rabbinical court of law, where we can be assured that justice is based on Torah law.
Sources: Shulhan Aruch Hoshen Mishpat 200:11, Ibid 186:2; Kenneset Hagedola, Hagahot Bet Yosef 186:3; Netivot Hamishpat 186:1; Even Haezel Hilchot Mechira 4; Kehilot Yaakov, Nedarim 24; West Business Law, ninth edition, pg.390.
VERDICT: The Calm after the Storm
Our Bet Din ruled in favor of Harry, awarding him a $7,000 claim against Stanley. As mentioned in Torah Law, since Stanley agreed to sell the merchandise on consignment, he effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintained the right to return the goods, in the interim, for all practical purposes, they belonged to him, deeming him liable for all damages. This ruling was decided by our Bet Din after ascertaining that the merchandise in question was merchantable and very desirable in the commercial market. Hence, this decision concurs with the opinion of all halachic authorities. Nevertheless, the Bet Din suggested that Harry consider Stanley’s general financial difficulties and settle with him for a smaller sum. Harry complied and the two settled the matter peacefully.
In Loving Memory of Vera Bat Carol, A”H
YOU BE THE JUDGE
Cookies and… Scream
Moe and Cindy were returning home Saturday night after spending the weekend with Cindy’s parents. They stopped off at a local ice cream parlor and purchased ice cream cones that they ate in their car in the dark. As Cindy got to the bottom of the cone, she reached with her fingers to the bottom of the cone to eat what seemed to be the last chunk of chocolate. After biting into it, Cindy began screaming and discharged from her mouth a sizeable roach. Utterly repulsed, she repeatedly vomited. After tending to his wife, Moe stormed into the ice cream store and berated the store owner for the incident, demanding compensation for his wife’s mental and emotional anguish. The store owner was sincerely apologetic but refused to resolve the matter that evening. Moe and Cindy filed a written complaint to our Bet Din, claiming $10,000 in compensation. In Bet Din, the store owner explained that his store had been operating for over nine years and he never encountered a complaint. Furthermore, he recently passed an inspection with the board of health. He felt that the incident was due to circumstances beyond his control and that he should not be liable for the unfortunate experience.
How should the Bet Din rule, in favor of Cindy or the store owner and why?
Stanley, a jobber, regularly buys and sells varied merchandise at a small profit. Upon striking a deal to purchase from Harry $7,000 worth of goods, the two agreed that the sale would be on consignment. Stanley stored the merchandise in his private garage, which was protected by a surveillance camera and a sophisticated alarm system. But when Hurricane Milton swept across the Southeast Coast, a tree fell on the garage, starting an electrical fire that caused permanent damage to the merchandise. Stanley immediately notified Harry of the unfortunate turn of events and told him that he had no intention of paying for the goods since they were bought on consignment. Harry did not respond to Stanley but rather summoned him to Bet Din claiming $7,000 in compensation for the lost merchandise. In Bet Din, Stanley explained that although the merchandise was lost while in his domain, by definition of consignment, Harry had retained ownership of the goods until they were sold. Since Harry was the owner of the merchandise, he is to sustain the loss. Harry defended his claim stating simply that while Stanley maintained the right to return the merchandise at any time, if he fails to return the goods for any reason, he is liable for payment.
According to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a potential buyer who picks up a product for inspection is liable for all damage caused while in his possession. The logic behind this ruling is that since a potential buyer can benefit from the right to inspect the product at no cost, he receives a legal status similar to that of a borrower. Hence, he is liable even for damages caused by circumstances beyond his control.
Nevertheless, some restrictions do apply. First, the potential buyer assumes responsibility for damages only if the product is so desirable in the market that it could have easily been sold to another party. If, however, the product is one that is not readily sold, the owner may not collect payment for damages caused by an unforeseeable occurrence. For example, if the product is an outdated electronic device, then, in contrast to the situation mentioned above, it is considered a benefit to the seller that the buyer is even considering making the purchase, and thus the buyer is not considered a borrower when inspecting the product and does not bear liability for damages caused by circumstances beyond his control. It is important to note that this rule can be subject to customary store policies, and therefore one must consult a competent halachic authority before deciding whether a customer is liable for damages.
On the other hand, in a similar ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a customer who purchases goods on consignment is liable in a case of unforeseeable damage – even for merchandise that is undesirable. Even though the customer did not finalize the sale and maintains the right to return the undesirable goods at his own leisure, he is nevertheless responsible for all damage.
Leading halachic authorities explain that although buying merchandise on consignment bears some resemblance to picking up a product for inspection, there is a clear distinction. While in both instances the buyers are not under any obligation and may return the goods, one who simply picks up a product for inspection is merely a potential buyer, and the pending transaction is dependent on his decision. Hence, he is only deemed liable for damages if the product is desirable in the market, since only then can we assume that it is likely he will have ultimately made the purchase. By contrast, one who agrees to sell merchandise on consignment has effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintains the right to return the goods, he already owns them and is liable for all damages until their return. Other leading halachic authorities differ with the above ruling and exempt a buyer of merchandise on consignment in instances of unforeseeable damage – unless the merchandise was desirable and could have been readily sold.
Many of the Torah precepts relevant to this issue have been adopted by the non-Jewish world. The Uniform Commercial Code [UCC 2-326 (1) and (2)] differentiates between a sale contingent on the buyer’s approval, and a sale on consignment; goods held on approval are not subject to claims by the buyer’s creditors, while goods held for sale on consignment are subject to such claims while in the buyer’s possession. Our Torah, brought to us by Moshe thousands of years ago, has set the framework for all judicial systems to emulate, for the wisdom of our Torah bears the truth of Hashem’s justice. It is our Torah obligation that all monetary disputes with fellow Jews be decided by a rabbinical court of law, where we can be assured that justice is based on Torah law.
Sources: Shulhan Aruch Hoshen Mishpat 200:11, Ibid 186:2; Kenneset Hagedola, Hagahot Bet Yosef 186:3; Netivot Hamishpat 186:1; Even Haezel Hilchot Mechira 4; Kehilot Yaakov, Nedarim 24; West Business Law, ninth edition, pg.390.
VERDICT: The Calm after the Storm
Our Bet Din ruled in favor of Harry, awarding him a $7,000 claim against Stanley. As mentioned in Torah Law, since Stanley agreed to sell the merchandise on consignment, he effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintained the right to return the goods, in the interim, for all practical purposes, they belonged to him, deeming him liable for all damages. This ruling was decided by our Bet Din after ascertaining that the merchandise in question was merchantable and very desirable in the commercial market. Hence, this decision concurs with the opinion of all halachic authorities. Nevertheless, the Bet Din suggested that Harry consider Stanley’s general financial difficulties and settle with him for a smaller sum. Harry complied and the two settled the matter peacefully.
In Loving Memory of Vera Bat Carol, A”H
YOU BE THE JUDGE
Cookies and… Scream
Moe and Cindy were returning home Saturday night after spending the weekend with Cindy’s parents. They stopped off at a local ice cream parlor and purchased ice cream cones that they ate in their car in the dark. As Cindy got to the bottom of the cone, she reached with her fingers to the bottom of the cone to eat what seemed to be the last chunk of chocolate. After biting into it, Cindy began screaming and discharged from her mouth a sizeable roach. Utterly repulsed, she repeatedly vomited. After tending to his wife, Moe stormed into the ice cream store and berated the store owner for the incident, demanding compensation for his wife’s mental and emotional anguish. The store owner was sincerely apologetic but refused to resolve the matter that evening. Moe and Cindy filed a written complaint to our Bet Din, claiming $10,000 in compensation. In Bet Din, the store owner explained that his store had been operating for over nine years and he never encountered a complaint. Furthermore, he recently passed an inspection with the board of health. He felt that the incident was due to circumstances beyond his control and that he should not be liable for the unfortunate experience.
How should the Bet Din rule, in favor of Cindy or the store owner and why?
Nevertheless, some restrictions do apply. First, the potential buyer assumes responsibility for damages only if the product is so desirable in the market that it could have easily been sold to another party. If, however, the product is one that is not readily sold, the owner may not collect payment for damages caused by an unforeseeable occurrence. For example, if the product is an outdated electronic device, then, in contrast to the situation mentioned above, it is considered a benefit to the seller that the buyer is even considering making the purchase, and thus the buyer is not considered a borrower when inspecting the product and does not bear liability for damages caused by circumstances beyond his control. It is important to note that this rule can be subject to customary store policies, and therefore one must consult a competent halachic authority before deciding whether a customer is liable for damages.
On the other hand, in a similar ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a customer who purchases goods on consignment is liable in a case of unforeseeable damage – even for merchandise that is undesirable. Even though the customer did not finalize the sale and maintains the right to return the undesirable goods at his own leisure, he is nevertheless responsible for all damage.
Leading halachic authorities explain that although buying merchandise on consignment bears some resemblance to picking up a product for inspection, there is a clear distinction. While in both instances the buyers are not under any obligation and may return the goods, one who simply picks up a product for inspection is merely a potential buyer, and the pending transaction is dependent on his decision. Hence, he is only deemed liable for damages if the product is desirable in the market, since only then can we assume that it is likely he will have ultimately made the purchase. By contrast, one who agrees to sell merchandise on consignment has effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintains the right to return the goods, he already owns them and is liable for all damages until their return. Other leading halachic authorities differ with the above ruling and exempt a buyer of merchandise on consignment in instances of unforeseeable damage – unless the merchandise was desirable and could have been readily sold.
Many of the Torah precepts relevant to this issue have been adopted by the non-Jewish world. The Uniform Commercial Code [UCC 2-326 (1) and (2)] differentiates between a sale contingent on the buyer’s approval, and a sale on consignment; goods held on approval are not subject to claims by the buyer’s creditors, while goods held for sale on consignment are subject to such claims while in the buyer’s possession. Our Torah, brought to us by Moshe thousands of years ago, has set the framework for all judicial systems to emulate, for the wisdom of our Torah bears the truth of Hashem’s justice. It is our Torah obligation that all monetary disputes with fellow Jews be decided by a rabbinical court of law, where we can be assured that justice is based on Torah law.
Sources: Shulhan Aruch Hoshen Mishpat 200:11, Ibid 186:2; Kenneset Hagedola, Hagahot Bet Yosef 186:3; Netivot Hamishpat 186:1; Even Haezel Hilchot Mechira 4; Kehilot Yaakov, Nedarim 24; West Business Law, ninth edition, pg.390.
VERDICT: The Calm after the Storm
Our Bet Din ruled in favor of Harry, awarding him a $7,000 claim against Stanley. As mentioned in Torah Law, since Stanley agreed to sell the merchandise on consignment, he effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintained the right to return the goods, in the interim, for all practical purposes, they belonged to him, deeming him liable for all damages. This ruling was decided by our Bet Din after ascertaining that the merchandise in question was merchantable and very desirable in the commercial market. Hence, this decision concurs with the opinion of all halachic authorities. Nevertheless, the Bet Din suggested that Harry consider Stanley’s general financial difficulties and settle with him for a smaller sum. Harry complied and the two settled the matter peacefully.
In Loving Memory of Vera Bat Carol, A”H
YOU BE THE JUDGE
Cookies and… Scream
Moe and Cindy were returning home Saturday night after spending the weekend with Cindy’s parents. They stopped off at a local ice cream parlor and purchased ice cream cones that they ate in their car in the dark. As Cindy got to the bottom of the cone, she reached with her fingers to the bottom of the cone to eat what seemed to be the last chunk of chocolate. After biting into it, Cindy began screaming and discharged from her mouth a sizeable roach. Utterly repulsed, she repeatedly vomited. After tending to his wife, Moe stormed into the ice cream store and berated the store owner for the incident, demanding compensation for his wife’s mental and emotional anguish. The store owner was sincerely apologetic but refused to resolve the matter that evening. Moe and Cindy filed a written complaint to our Bet Din, claiming $10,000 in compensation. In Bet Din, the store owner explained that his store had been operating for over nine years and he never encountered a complaint. Furthermore, he recently passed an inspection with the board of health. He felt that the incident was due to circumstances beyond his control and that he should not be liable for the unfortunate experience.
How should the Bet Din rule, in favor of Cindy or the store owner and why?
Stanley, a jobber, regularly buys and sells varied merchandise at a small profit. Upon striking a deal to purchase from Harry $7,000 worth of goods, the two agreed that the sale would be on consignment. Stanley stored the merchandise in his private garage, which was protected by a surveillance camera and a sophisticated alarm system. But when Hurricane Milton swept across the Southeast Coast, a tree fell on the garage, starting an electrical fire that caused permanent damage to the merchandise. Stanley immediately notified Harry of the unfortunate turn of events and told him that he had no intention of paying for the goods since they were bought on consignment. Harry did not respond to Stanley but rather summoned him to Bet Din claiming $7,000 in compensation for the lost merchandise. In Bet Din, Stanley explained that although the merchandise was lost while in his domain, by definition of consignment, Harry had retained ownership of the goods until they were sold. Since Harry was the owner of the merchandise, he is to sustain the loss. Harry defended his claim stating simply that while Stanley maintained the right to return the merchandise at any time, if he fails to return the goods for any reason, he is liable for payment.
According to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a potential buyer who picks up a product for inspection is liable for all damage caused while in his possession. The logic behind this ruling is that since a potential buyer can benefit from the right to inspect the product at no cost, he receives a legal status similar to that of a borrower. Hence, he is liable even for damages caused by circumstances beyond his control.
Nevertheless, some restrictions do apply. First, the potential buyer assumes responsibility for damages only if the product is so desirable in the market that it could have easily been sold to another party. If, however, the product is one that is not readily sold, the owner may not collect payment for damages caused by an unforeseeable occurrence. For example, if the product is an outdated electronic device, then, in contrast to the situation mentioned above, it is considered a benefit to the seller that the buyer is even considering making the purchase, and thus the buyer is not considered a borrower when inspecting the product and does not bear liability for damages caused by circumstances beyond his control. It is important to note that this rule can be subject to customary store policies, and therefore one must consult a competent halachic authority before deciding whether a customer is liable for damages.
On the other hand, in a similar ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a customer who purchases goods on consignment is liable in a case of unforeseeable damage – even for merchandise that is undesirable. Even though the customer did not finalize the sale and maintains the right to return the undesirable goods at his own leisure, he is nevertheless responsible for all damage.
Leading halachic authorities explain that although buying merchandise on consignment bears some resemblance to picking up a product for inspection, there is a clear distinction. While in both instances the buyers are not under any obligation and may return the goods, one who simply picks up a product for inspection is merely a potential buyer, and the pending transaction is dependent on his decision. Hence, he is only deemed liable for damages if the product is desirable in the market, since only then can we assume that it is likely he will have ultimately made the purchase. By contrast, one who agrees to sell merchandise on consignment has effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintains the right to return the goods, he already owns them and is liable for all damages until their return. Other leading halachic authorities differ with the above ruling and exempt a buyer of merchandise on consignment in instances of unforeseeable damage – unless the merchandise was desirable and could have been readily sold.
Many of the Torah precepts relevant to this issue have been adopted by the non-Jewish world. The Uniform Commercial Code [UCC 2-326 (1) and (2)] differentiates between a sale contingent on the buyer’s approval, and a sale on consignment; goods held on approval are not subject to claims by the buyer’s creditors, while goods held for sale on consignment are subject to such claims while in the buyer’s possession. Our Torah, brought to us by Moshe thousands of years ago, has set the framework for all judicial systems to emulate, for the wisdom of our Torah bears the truth of Hashem’s justice. It is our Torah obligation that all monetary disputes with fellow Jews be decided by a rabbinical court of law, where we can be assured that justice is based on Torah law.
Sources: Shulhan Aruch Hoshen Mishpat 200:11, Ibid 186:2; Kenneset Hagedola, Hagahot Bet Yosef 186:3; Netivot Hamishpat 186:1; Even Haezel Hilchot Mechira 4; Kehilot Yaakov, Nedarim 24; West Business Law, ninth edition, pg.390.
VERDICT: The Calm after the Storm
Our Bet Din ruled in favor of Harry, awarding him a $7,000 claim against Stanley. As mentioned in Torah Law, since Stanley agreed to sell the merchandise on consignment, he effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintained the right to return the goods, in the interim, for all practical purposes, they belonged to him, deeming him liable for all damages. This ruling was decided by our Bet Din after ascertaining that the merchandise in question was merchantable and very desirable in the commercial market. Hence, this decision concurs with the opinion of all halachic authorities. Nevertheless, the Bet Din suggested that Harry consider Stanley’s general financial difficulties and settle with him for a smaller sum. Harry complied and the two settled the matter peacefully.
In Loving Memory of Vera Bat Carol, A”H
YOU BE THE JUDGE
Cookies and… Scream
Moe and Cindy were returning home Saturday night after spending the weekend with Cindy’s parents. They stopped off at a local ice cream parlor and purchased ice cream cones that they ate in their car in the dark. As Cindy got to the bottom of the cone, she reached with her fingers to the bottom of the cone to eat what seemed to be the last chunk of chocolate. After biting into it, Cindy began screaming and discharged from her mouth a sizeable roach. Utterly repulsed, she repeatedly vomited. After tending to his wife, Moe stormed into the ice cream store and berated the store owner for the incident, demanding compensation for his wife’s mental and emotional anguish. The store owner was sincerely apologetic but refused to resolve the matter that evening. Moe and Cindy filed a written complaint to our Bet Din, claiming $10,000 in compensation. In Bet Din, the store owner explained that his store had been operating for over nine years and he never encountered a complaint. Furthermore, he recently passed an inspection with the board of health. He felt that the incident was due to circumstances beyond his control and that he should not be liable for the unfortunate experience.
How should the Bet Din rule, in favor of Cindy or the store owner and why?
According to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a potential buyer who picks up a product for inspection is liable for all damage caused while in his possession. The logic behind this ruling is that since a potential buyer can benefit from the right to inspect the product at no cost, he receives a legal status similar to that of a borrower. Hence, he is liable even for damages caused by circumstances beyond his control.
Nevertheless, some restrictions do apply. First, the potential buyer assumes responsibility for damages only if the product is so desirable in the market that it could have easily been sold to another party. If, however, the product is one that is not readily sold, the owner may not collect payment for damages caused by an unforeseeable occurrence. For example, if the product is an outdated electronic device, then, in contrast to the situation mentioned above, it is considered a benefit to the seller that the buyer is even considering making the purchase, and thus the buyer is not considered a borrower when inspecting the product and does not bear liability for damages caused by circumstances beyond his control. It is important to note that this rule can be subject to customary store policies, and therefore one must consult a competent halachic authority before deciding whether a customer is liable for damages.
On the other hand, in a similar ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a customer who purchases goods on consignment is liable in a case of unforeseeable damage – even for merchandise that is undesirable. Even though the customer did not finalize the sale and maintains the right to return the undesirable goods at his own leisure, he is nevertheless responsible for all damage.
Leading halachic authorities explain that although buying merchandise on consignment bears some resemblance to picking up a product for inspection, there is a clear distinction. While in both instances the buyers are not under any obligation and may return the goods, one who simply picks up a product for inspection is merely a potential buyer, and the pending transaction is dependent on his decision. Hence, he is only deemed liable for damages if the product is desirable in the market, since only then can we assume that it is likely he will have ultimately made the purchase. By contrast, one who agrees to sell merchandise on consignment has effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintains the right to return the goods, he already owns them and is liable for all damages until their return. Other leading halachic authorities differ with the above ruling and exempt a buyer of merchandise on consignment in instances of unforeseeable damage – unless the merchandise was desirable and could have been readily sold.
Many of the Torah precepts relevant to this issue have been adopted by the non-Jewish world. The Uniform Commercial Code [UCC 2-326 (1) and (2)] differentiates between a sale contingent on the buyer’s approval, and a sale on consignment; goods held on approval are not subject to claims by the buyer’s creditors, while goods held for sale on consignment are subject to such claims while in the buyer’s possession. Our Torah, brought to us by Moshe thousands of years ago, has set the framework for all judicial systems to emulate, for the wisdom of our Torah bears the truth of Hashem’s justice. It is our Torah obligation that all monetary disputes with fellow Jews be decided by a rabbinical court of law, where we can be assured that justice is based on Torah law.
Sources: Shulhan Aruch Hoshen Mishpat 200:11, Ibid 186:2; Kenneset Hagedola, Hagahot Bet Yosef 186:3; Netivot Hamishpat 186:1; Even Haezel Hilchot Mechira 4; Kehilot Yaakov, Nedarim 24; West Business Law, ninth edition, pg.390.
VERDICT: The Calm after the Storm
Our Bet Din ruled in favor of Harry, awarding him a $7,000 claim against Stanley. As mentioned in Torah Law, since Stanley agreed to sell the merchandise on consignment, he effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintained the right to return the goods, in the interim, for all practical purposes, they belonged to him, deeming him liable for all damages. This ruling was decided by our Bet Din after ascertaining that the merchandise in question was merchantable and very desirable in the commercial market. Hence, this decision concurs with the opinion of all halachic authorities. Nevertheless, the Bet Din suggested that Harry consider Stanley’s general financial difficulties and settle with him for a smaller sum. Harry complied and the two settled the matter peacefully.
In Loving Memory of Vera Bat Carol, A”H
YOU BE THE JUDGE
Cookies and… Scream
Moe and Cindy were returning home Saturday night after spending the weekend with Cindy’s parents. They stopped off at a local ice cream parlor and purchased ice cream cones that they ate in their car in the dark. As Cindy got to the bottom of the cone, she reached with her fingers to the bottom of the cone to eat what seemed to be the last chunk of chocolate. After biting into it, Cindy began screaming and discharged from her mouth a sizeable roach. Utterly repulsed, she repeatedly vomited. After tending to his wife, Moe stormed into the ice cream store and berated the store owner for the incident, demanding compensation for his wife’s mental and emotional anguish. The store owner was sincerely apologetic but refused to resolve the matter that evening. Moe and Cindy filed a written complaint to our Bet Din, claiming $10,000 in compensation. In Bet Din, the store owner explained that his store had been operating for over nine years and he never encountered a complaint. Furthermore, he recently passed an inspection with the board of health. He felt that the incident was due to circumstances beyond his control and that he should not be liable for the unfortunate experience.
How should the Bet Din rule, in favor of Cindy or the store owner and why?
Stanley, a jobber, regularly buys and sells varied merchandise at a small profit. Upon striking a deal to purchase from Harry $7,000 worth of goods, the two agreed that the sale would be on consignment. Stanley stored the merchandise in his private garage, which was protected by a surveillance camera and a sophisticated alarm system. But when Hurricane Milton swept across the Southeast Coast, a tree fell on the garage, starting an electrical fire that caused permanent damage to the merchandise. Stanley immediately notified Harry of the unfortunate turn of events and told him that he had no intention of paying for the goods since they were bought on consignment. Harry did not respond to Stanley but rather summoned him to Bet Din claiming $7,000 in compensation for the lost merchandise. In Bet Din, Stanley explained that although the merchandise was lost while in his domain, by definition of consignment, Harry had retained ownership of the goods until they were sold. Since Harry was the owner of the merchandise, he is to sustain the loss. Harry defended his claim stating simply that while Stanley maintained the right to return the merchandise at any time, if he fails to return the goods for any reason, he is liable for payment.
According to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a potential buyer who picks up a product for inspection is liable for all damage caused while in his possession. The logic behind this ruling is that since a potential buyer can benefit from the right to inspect the product at no cost, he receives a legal status similar to that of a borrower. Hence, he is liable even for damages caused by circumstances beyond his control.
Nevertheless, some restrictions do apply. First, the potential buyer assumes responsibility for damages only if the product is so desirable in the market that it could have easily been sold to another party. If, however, the product is one that is not readily sold, the owner may not collect payment for damages caused by an unforeseeable occurrence. For example, if the product is an outdated electronic device, then, in contrast to the situation mentioned above, it is considered a benefit to the seller that the buyer is even considering making the purchase, and thus the buyer is not considered a borrower when inspecting the product and does not bear liability for damages caused by circumstances beyond his control. It is important to note that this rule can be subject to customary store policies, and therefore one must consult a competent halachic authority before deciding whether a customer is liable for damages.
On the other hand, in a similar ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a customer who purchases goods on consignment is liable in a case of unforeseeable damage – even for merchandise that is undesirable. Even though the customer did not finalize the sale and maintains the right to return the undesirable goods at his own leisure, he is nevertheless responsible for all damage.
Leading halachic authorities explain that although buying merchandise on consignment bears some resemblance to picking up a product for inspection, there is a clear distinction. While in both instances the buyers are not under any obligation and may return the goods, one who simply picks up a product for inspection is merely a potential buyer, and the pending transaction is dependent on his decision. Hence, he is only deemed liable for damages if the product is desirable in the market, since only then can we assume that it is likely he will have ultimately made the purchase. By contrast, one who agrees to sell merchandise on consignment has effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintains the right to return the goods, he already owns them and is liable for all damages until their return. Other leading halachic authorities differ with the above ruling and exempt a buyer of merchandise on consignment in instances of unforeseeable damage – unless the merchandise was desirable and could have been readily sold.
Many of the Torah precepts relevant to this issue have been adopted by the non-Jewish world. The Uniform Commercial Code [UCC 2-326 (1) and (2)] differentiates between a sale contingent on the buyer’s approval, and a sale on consignment; goods held on approval are not subject to claims by the buyer’s creditors, while goods held for sale on consignment are subject to such claims while in the buyer’s possession. Our Torah, brought to us by Moshe thousands of years ago, has set the framework for all judicial systems to emulate, for the wisdom of our Torah bears the truth of Hashem’s justice. It is our Torah obligation that all monetary disputes with fellow Jews be decided by a rabbinical court of law, where we can be assured that justice is based on Torah law.
Sources: Shulhan Aruch Hoshen Mishpat 200:11, Ibid 186:2; Kenneset Hagedola, Hagahot Bet Yosef 186:3; Netivot Hamishpat 186:1; Even Haezel Hilchot Mechira 4; Kehilot Yaakov, Nedarim 24; West Business Law, ninth edition, pg.390.
VERDICT: The Calm after the Storm
Our Bet Din ruled in favor of Harry, awarding him a $7,000 claim against Stanley. As mentioned in Torah Law, since Stanley agreed to sell the merchandise on consignment, he effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintained the right to return the goods, in the interim, for all practical purposes, they belonged to him, deeming him liable for all damages. This ruling was decided by our Bet Din after ascertaining that the merchandise in question was merchantable and very desirable in the commercial market. Hence, this decision concurs with the opinion of all halachic authorities. Nevertheless, the Bet Din suggested that Harry consider Stanley’s general financial difficulties and settle with him for a smaller sum. Harry complied and the two settled the matter peacefully.
In Loving Memory of Vera Bat Carol, A”H
YOU BE THE JUDGE
Cookies and… Scream
Moe and Cindy were returning home Saturday night after spending the weekend with Cindy’s parents. They stopped off at a local ice cream parlor and purchased ice cream cones that they ate in their car in the dark. As Cindy got to the bottom of the cone, she reached with her fingers to the bottom of the cone to eat what seemed to be the last chunk of chocolate. After biting into it, Cindy began screaming and discharged from her mouth a sizeable roach. Utterly repulsed, she repeatedly vomited. After tending to his wife, Moe stormed into the ice cream store and berated the store owner for the incident, demanding compensation for his wife’s mental and emotional anguish. The store owner was sincerely apologetic but refused to resolve the matter that evening. Moe and Cindy filed a written complaint to our Bet Din, claiming $10,000 in compensation. In Bet Din, the store owner explained that his store had been operating for over nine years and he never encountered a complaint. Furthermore, he recently passed an inspection with the board of health. He felt that the incident was due to circumstances beyond his control and that he should not be liable for the unfortunate experience.
How should the Bet Din rule, in favor of Cindy or the store owner and why?
According to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a potential buyer who picks up a product for inspection is liable for all damage caused while in his possession. The logic behind this ruling is that since a potential buyer can benefit from the right to inspect the product at no cost, he receives a legal status similar to that of a borrower. Hence, he is liable even for damages caused by circumstances beyond his control.
Nevertheless, some restrictions do apply. First, the potential buyer assumes responsibility for damages only if the product is so desirable in the market that it could have easily been sold to another party. If, however, the product is one that is not readily sold, the owner may not collect payment for damages caused by an unforeseeable occurrence. For example, if the product is an outdated electronic device, then, in contrast to the situation mentioned above, it is considered a benefit to the seller that the buyer is even considering making the purchase, and thus the buyer is not considered a borrower when inspecting the product and does not bear liability for damages caused by circumstances beyond his control. It is important to note that this rule can be subject to customary store policies, and therefore one must consult a competent halachic authority before deciding whether a customer is liable for damages.
On the other hand, in a similar ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a customer who purchases goods on consignment is liable in a case of unforeseeable damage – even for merchandise that is undesirable. Even though the customer did not finalize the sale and maintains the right to return the undesirable goods at his own leisure, he is nevertheless responsible for all damage.
Leading halachic authorities explain that although buying merchandise on consignment bears some resemblance to picking up a product for inspection, there is a clear distinction. While in both instances the buyers are not under any obligation and may return the goods, one who simply picks up a product for inspection is merely a potential buyer, and the pending transaction is dependent on his decision. Hence, he is only deemed liable for damages if the product is desirable in the market, since only then can we assume that it is likely he will have ultimately made the purchase. By contrast, one who agrees to sell merchandise on consignment has effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintains the right to return the goods, he already owns them and is liable for all damages until their return. Other leading halachic authorities differ with the above ruling and exempt a buyer of merchandise on consignment in instances of unforeseeable damage – unless the merchandise was desirable and could have been readily sold.
Many of the Torah precepts relevant to this issue have been adopted by the non-Jewish world. The Uniform Commercial Code [UCC 2-326 (1) and (2)] differentiates between a sale contingent on the buyer’s approval, and a sale on consignment; goods held on approval are not subject to claims by the buyer’s creditors, while goods held for sale on consignment are subject to such claims while in the buyer’s possession. Our Torah, brought to us by Moshe thousands of years ago, has set the framework for all judicial systems to emulate, for the wisdom of our Torah bears the truth of Hashem’s justice. It is our Torah obligation that all monetary disputes with fellow Jews be decided by a rabbinical court of law, where we can be assured that justice is based on Torah law.
Sources: Shulhan Aruch Hoshen Mishpat 200:11, Ibid 186:2; Kenneset Hagedola, Hagahot Bet Yosef 186:3; Netivot Hamishpat 186:1; Even Haezel Hilchot Mechira 4; Kehilot Yaakov, Nedarim 24; West Business Law, ninth edition, pg.390.
VERDICT: The Calm after the Storm
Our Bet Din ruled in favor of Harry, awarding him a $7,000 claim against Stanley. As mentioned in Torah Law, since Stanley agreed to sell the merchandise on consignment, he effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintained the right to return the goods, in the interim, for all practical purposes, they belonged to him, deeming him liable for all damages. This ruling was decided by our Bet Din after ascertaining that the merchandise in question was merchantable and very desirable in the commercial market. Hence, this decision concurs with the opinion of all halachic authorities. Nevertheless, the Bet Din suggested that Harry consider Stanley’s general financial difficulties and settle with him for a smaller sum. Harry complied and the two settled the matter peacefully.
In Loving Memory of Vera Bat Carol, A”H
YOU BE THE JUDGE
Cookies and… Scream
Moe and Cindy were returning home Saturday night after spending the weekend with Cindy’s parents. They stopped off at a local ice cream parlor and purchased ice cream cones that they ate in their car in the dark. As Cindy got to the bottom of the cone, she reached with her fingers to the bottom of the cone to eat what seemed to be the last chunk of chocolate. After biting into it, Cindy began screaming and discharged from her mouth a sizeable roach. Utterly repulsed, she repeatedly vomited. After tending to his wife, Moe stormed into the ice cream store and berated the store owner for the incident, demanding compensation for his wife’s mental and emotional anguish. The store owner was sincerely apologetic but refused to resolve the matter that evening. Moe and Cindy filed a written complaint to our Bet Din, claiming $10,000 in compensation. In Bet Din, the store owner explained that his store had been operating for over nine years and he never encountered a complaint. Furthermore, he recently passed an inspection with the board of health. He felt that the incident was due to circumstances beyond his control and that he should not be liable for the unfortunate experience.
How should the Bet Din rule, in favor of Cindy or the store owner and why?
Stanley, a jobber, regularly buys and sells varied merchandise at a small profit. Upon striking a deal to purchase from Harry $7,000 worth of goods, the two agreed that the sale would be on consignment. Stanley stored the merchandise in his private garage, which was protected by a surveillance camera and a sophisticated alarm system. But when Hurricane Milton swept across the Southeast Coast, a tree fell on the garage, starting an electrical fire that caused permanent damage to the merchandise. Stanley immediately notified Harry of the unfortunate turn of events and told him that he had no intention of paying for the goods since they were bought on consignment. Harry did not respond to Stanley but rather summoned him to Bet Din claiming $7,000 in compensation for the lost merchandise. In Bet Din, Stanley explained that although the merchandise was lost while in his domain, by definition of consignment, Harry had retained ownership of the goods until they were sold. Since Harry was the owner of the merchandise, he is to sustain the loss. Harry defended his claim stating simply that while Stanley maintained the right to return the merchandise at any time, if he fails to return the goods for any reason, he is liable for payment.
According to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a potential buyer who picks up a product for inspection is liable for all damage caused while in his possession. The logic behind this ruling is that since a potential buyer can benefit from the right to inspect the product at no cost, he receives a legal status similar to that of a borrower. Hence, he is liable even for damages caused by circumstances beyond his control.
Nevertheless, some restrictions do apply. First, the potential buyer assumes responsibility for damages only if the product is so desirable in the market that it could have easily been sold to another party. If, however, the product is one that is not readily sold, the owner may not collect payment for damages caused by an unforeseeable occurrence. For example, if the product is an outdated electronic device, then, in contrast to the situation mentioned above, it is considered a benefit to the seller that the buyer is even considering making the purchase, and thus the buyer is not considered a borrower when inspecting the product and does not bear liability for damages caused by circumstances beyond his control. It is important to note that this rule can be subject to customary store policies, and therefore one must consult a competent halachic authority before deciding whether a customer is liable for damages.
On the other hand, in a similar ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a customer who purchases goods on consignment is liable in a case of unforeseeable damage – even for merchandise that is undesirable. Even though the customer did not finalize the sale and maintains the right to return the undesirable goods at his own leisure, he is nevertheless responsible for all damage.
Leading halachic authorities explain that although buying merchandise on consignment bears some resemblance to picking up a product for inspection, there is a clear distinction. While in both instances the buyers are not under any obligation and may return the goods, one who simply picks up a product for inspection is merely a potential buyer, and the pending transaction is dependent on his decision. Hence, he is only deemed liable for damages if the product is desirable in the market, since only then can we assume that it is likely he will have ultimately made the purchase. By contrast, one who agrees to sell merchandise on consignment has effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintains the right to return the goods, he already owns them and is liable for all damages until their return. Other leading halachic authorities differ with the above ruling and exempt a buyer of merchandise on consignment in instances of unforeseeable damage – unless the merchandise was desirable and could have been readily sold.
Many of the Torah precepts relevant to this issue have been adopted by the non-Jewish world. The Uniform Commercial Code [UCC 2-326 (1) and (2)] differentiates between a sale contingent on the buyer’s approval, and a sale on consignment; goods held on approval are not subject to claims by the buyer’s creditors, while goods held for sale on consignment are subject to such claims while in the buyer’s possession. Our Torah, brought to us by Moshe thousands of years ago, has set the framework for all judicial systems to emulate, for the wisdom of our Torah bears the truth of Hashem’s justice. It is our Torah obligation that all monetary disputes with fellow Jews be decided by a rabbinical court of law, where we can be assured that justice is based on Torah law.
Sources: Shulhan Aruch Hoshen Mishpat 200:11, Ibid 186:2; Kenneset Hagedola, Hagahot Bet Yosef 186:3; Netivot Hamishpat 186:1; Even Haezel Hilchot Mechira 4; Kehilot Yaakov, Nedarim 24; West Business Law, ninth edition, pg.390.
VERDICT: The Calm after the Storm
Our Bet Din ruled in favor of Harry, awarding him a $7,000 claim against Stanley. As mentioned in Torah Law, since Stanley agreed to sell the merchandise on consignment, he effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintained the right to return the goods, in the interim, for all practical purposes, they belonged to him, deeming him liable for all damages. This ruling was decided by our Bet Din after ascertaining that the merchandise in question was merchantable and very desirable in the commercial market. Hence, this decision concurs with the opinion of all halachic authorities. Nevertheless, the Bet Din suggested that Harry consider Stanley’s general financial difficulties and settle with him for a smaller sum. Harry complied and the two settled the matter peacefully.
In Loving Memory of Vera Bat Carol, A”H
YOU BE THE JUDGE
Cookies and… Scream
Moe and Cindy were returning home Saturday night after spending the weekend with Cindy’s parents. They stopped off at a local ice cream parlor and purchased ice cream cones that they ate in their car in the dark. As Cindy got to the bottom of the cone, she reached with her fingers to the bottom of the cone to eat what seemed to be the last chunk of chocolate. After biting into it, Cindy began screaming and discharged from her mouth a sizeable roach. Utterly repulsed, she repeatedly vomited. After tending to his wife, Moe stormed into the ice cream store and berated the store owner for the incident, demanding compensation for his wife’s mental and emotional anguish. The store owner was sincerely apologetic but refused to resolve the matter that evening. Moe and Cindy filed a written complaint to our Bet Din, claiming $10,000 in compensation. In Bet Din, the store owner explained that his store had been operating for over nine years and he never encountered a complaint. Furthermore, he recently passed an inspection with the board of health. He felt that the incident was due to circumstances beyond his control and that he should not be liable for the unfortunate experience.
How should the Bet Din rule, in favor of Cindy or the store owner and why?
Nevertheless, some restrictions do apply. First, the potential buyer assumes responsibility for damages only if the product is so desirable in the market that it could have easily been sold to another party. If, however, the product is one that is not readily sold, the owner may not collect payment for damages caused by an unforeseeable occurrence. For example, if the product is an outdated electronic device, then, in contrast to the situation mentioned above, it is considered a benefit to the seller that the buyer is even considering making the purchase, and thus the buyer is not considered a borrower when inspecting the product and does not bear liability for damages caused by circumstances beyond his control. It is important to note that this rule can be subject to customary store policies, and therefore one must consult a competent halachic authority before deciding whether a customer is liable for damages.
On the other hand, in a similar ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a customer who purchases goods on consignment is liable in a case of unforeseeable damage – even for merchandise that is undesirable. Even though the customer did not finalize the sale and maintains the right to return the undesirable goods at his own leisure, he is nevertheless responsible for all damage.
Leading halachic authorities explain that although buying merchandise on consignment bears some resemblance to picking up a product for inspection, there is a clear distinction. While in both instances the buyers are not under any obligation and may return the goods, one who simply picks up a product for inspection is merely a potential buyer, and the pending transaction is dependent on his decision. Hence, he is only deemed liable for damages if the product is desirable in the market, since only then can we assume that it is likely he will have ultimately made the purchase. By contrast, one who agrees to sell merchandise on consignment has effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintains the right to return the goods, he already owns them and is liable for all damages until their return. Other leading halachic authorities differ with the above ruling and exempt a buyer of merchandise on consignment in instances of unforeseeable damage – unless the merchandise was desirable and could have been readily sold.
Many of the Torah precepts relevant to this issue have been adopted by the non-Jewish world. The Uniform Commercial Code [UCC 2-326 (1) and (2)] differentiates between a sale contingent on the buyer’s approval, and a sale on consignment; goods held on approval are not subject to claims by the buyer’s creditors, while goods held for sale on consignment are subject to such claims while in the buyer’s possession. Our Torah, brought to us by Moshe thousands of years ago, has set the framework for all judicial systems to emulate, for the wisdom of our Torah bears the truth of Hashem’s justice. It is our Torah obligation that all monetary disputes with fellow Jews be decided by a rabbinical court of law, where we can be assured that justice is based on Torah law.
Sources: Shulhan Aruch Hoshen Mishpat 200:11, Ibid 186:2; Kenneset Hagedola, Hagahot Bet Yosef 186:3; Netivot Hamishpat 186:1; Even Haezel Hilchot Mechira 4; Kehilot Yaakov, Nedarim 24; West Business Law, ninth edition, pg.390.
VERDICT: The Calm after the Storm
Our Bet Din ruled in favor of Harry, awarding him a $7,000 claim against Stanley. As mentioned in Torah Law, since Stanley agreed to sell the merchandise on consignment, he effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintained the right to return the goods, in the interim, for all practical purposes, they belonged to him, deeming him liable for all damages. This ruling was decided by our Bet Din after ascertaining that the merchandise in question was merchantable and very desirable in the commercial market. Hence, this decision concurs with the opinion of all halachic authorities. Nevertheless, the Bet Din suggested that Harry consider Stanley’s general financial difficulties and settle with him for a smaller sum. Harry complied and the two settled the matter peacefully.
In Loving Memory of Vera Bat Carol, A”H
YOU BE THE JUDGE
Cookies and… Scream
Moe and Cindy were returning home Saturday night after spending the weekend with Cindy’s parents. They stopped off at a local ice cream parlor and purchased ice cream cones that they ate in their car in the dark. As Cindy got to the bottom of the cone, she reached with her fingers to the bottom of the cone to eat what seemed to be the last chunk of chocolate. After biting into it, Cindy began screaming and discharged from her mouth a sizeable roach. Utterly repulsed, she repeatedly vomited. After tending to his wife, Moe stormed into the ice cream store and berated the store owner for the incident, demanding compensation for his wife’s mental and emotional anguish. The store owner was sincerely apologetic but refused to resolve the matter that evening. Moe and Cindy filed a written complaint to our Bet Din, claiming $10,000 in compensation. In Bet Din, the store owner explained that his store had been operating for over nine years and he never encountered a complaint. Furthermore, he recently passed an inspection with the board of health. He felt that the incident was due to circumstances beyond his control and that he should not be liable for the unfortunate experience.
How should the Bet Din rule, in favor of Cindy or the store owner and why?
According to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a potential buyer who picks up a product for inspection is liable for all damage caused while in his possession. The logic behind this ruling is that since a potential buyer can benefit from the right to inspect the product at no cost, he receives a legal status similar to that of a borrower. Hence, he is liable even for damages caused by circumstances beyond his control.
Nevertheless, some restrictions do apply. First, the potential buyer assumes responsibility for damages only if the product is so desirable in the market that it could have easily been sold to another party. If, however, the product is one that is not readily sold, the owner may not collect payment for damages caused by an unforeseeable occurrence. For example, if the product is an outdated electronic device, then, in contrast to the situation mentioned above, it is considered a benefit to the seller that the buyer is even considering making the purchase, and thus the buyer is not considered a borrower when inspecting the product and does not bear liability for damages caused by circumstances beyond his control. It is important to note that this rule can be subject to customary store policies, and therefore one must consult a competent halachic authority before deciding whether a customer is liable for damages.
On the other hand, in a similar ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a customer who purchases goods on consignment is liable in a case of unforeseeable damage – even for merchandise that is undesirable. Even though the customer did not finalize the sale and maintains the right to return the undesirable goods at his own leisure, he is nevertheless responsible for all damage.
Leading halachic authorities explain that although buying merchandise on consignment bears some resemblance to picking up a product for inspection, there is a clear distinction. While in both instances the buyers are not under any obligation and may return the goods, one who simply picks up a product for inspection is merely a potential buyer, and the pending transaction is dependent on his decision. Hence, he is only deemed liable for damages if the product is desirable in the market, since only then can we assume that it is likely he will have ultimately made the purchase. By contrast, one who agrees to sell merchandise on consignment has effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintains the right to return the goods, he already owns them and is liable for all damages until their return. Other leading halachic authorities differ with the above ruling and exempt a buyer of merchandise on consignment in instances of unforeseeable damage – unless the merchandise was desirable and could have been readily sold.
Many of the Torah precepts relevant to this issue have been adopted by the non-Jewish world. The Uniform Commercial Code [UCC 2-326 (1) and (2)] differentiates between a sale contingent on the buyer’s approval, and a sale on consignment; goods held on approval are not subject to claims by the buyer’s creditors, while goods held for sale on consignment are subject to such claims while in the buyer’s possession. Our Torah, brought to us by Moshe thousands of years ago, has set the framework for all judicial systems to emulate, for the wisdom of our Torah bears the truth of Hashem’s justice. It is our Torah obligation that all monetary disputes with fellow Jews be decided by a rabbinical court of law, where we can be assured that justice is based on Torah law.
Sources: Shulhan Aruch Hoshen Mishpat 200:11, Ibid 186:2; Kenneset Hagedola, Hagahot Bet Yosef 186:3; Netivot Hamishpat 186:1; Even Haezel Hilchot Mechira 4; Kehilot Yaakov, Nedarim 24; West Business Law, ninth edition, pg.390.
VERDICT: The Calm after the Storm
Our Bet Din ruled in favor of Harry, awarding him a $7,000 claim against Stanley. As mentioned in Torah Law, since Stanley agreed to sell the merchandise on consignment, he effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintained the right to return the goods, in the interim, for all practical purposes, they belonged to him, deeming him liable for all damages. This ruling was decided by our Bet Din after ascertaining that the merchandise in question was merchantable and very desirable in the commercial market. Hence, this decision concurs with the opinion of all halachic authorities. Nevertheless, the Bet Din suggested that Harry consider Stanley’s general financial difficulties and settle with him for a smaller sum. Harry complied and the two settled the matter peacefully.
In Loving Memory of Vera Bat Carol, A”H
YOU BE THE JUDGE
Cookies and… Scream
Moe and Cindy were returning home Saturday night after spending the weekend with Cindy’s parents. They stopped off at a local ice cream parlor and purchased ice cream cones that they ate in their car in the dark. As Cindy got to the bottom of the cone, she reached with her fingers to the bottom of the cone to eat what seemed to be the last chunk of chocolate. After biting into it, Cindy began screaming and discharged from her mouth a sizeable roach. Utterly repulsed, she repeatedly vomited. After tending to his wife, Moe stormed into the ice cream store and berated the store owner for the incident, demanding compensation for his wife’s mental and emotional anguish. The store owner was sincerely apologetic but refused to resolve the matter that evening. Moe and Cindy filed a written complaint to our Bet Din, claiming $10,000 in compensation. In Bet Din, the store owner explained that his store had been operating for over nine years and he never encountered a complaint. Furthermore, he recently passed an inspection with the board of health. He felt that the incident was due to circumstances beyond his control and that he should not be liable for the unfortunate experience.
How should the Bet Din rule, in favor of Cindy or the store owner and why?
Stanley, a jobber, regularly buys and sells varied merchandise at a small profit. Upon striking a deal to purchase from Harry $7,000 worth of goods, the two agreed that the sale would be on consignment. Stanley stored the merchandise in his private garage, which was protected by a surveillance camera and a sophisticated alarm system. But when Hurricane Milton swept across the Southeast Coast, a tree fell on the garage, starting an electrical fire that caused permanent damage to the merchandise. Stanley immediately notified Harry of the unfortunate turn of events and told him that he had no intention of paying for the goods since they were bought on consignment. Harry did not respond to Stanley but rather summoned him to Bet Din claiming $7,000 in compensation for the lost merchandise. In Bet Din, Stanley explained that although the merchandise was lost while in his domain, by definition of consignment, Harry had retained ownership of the goods until they were sold. Since Harry was the owner of the merchandise, he is to sustain the loss. Harry defended his claim stating simply that while Stanley maintained the right to return the merchandise at any time, if he fails to return the goods for any reason, he is liable for payment.
According to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a potential buyer who picks up a product for inspection is liable for all damage caused while in his possession. The logic behind this ruling is that since a potential buyer can benefit from the right to inspect the product at no cost, he receives a legal status similar to that of a borrower. Hence, he is liable even for damages caused by circumstances beyond his control.
Nevertheless, some restrictions do apply. First, the potential buyer assumes responsibility for damages only if the product is so desirable in the market that it could have easily been sold to another party. If, however, the product is one that is not readily sold, the owner may not collect payment for damages caused by an unforeseeable occurrence. For example, if the product is an outdated electronic device, then, in contrast to the situation mentioned above, it is considered a benefit to the seller that the buyer is even considering making the purchase, and thus the buyer is not considered a borrower when inspecting the product and does not bear liability for damages caused by circumstances beyond his control. It is important to note that this rule can be subject to customary store policies, and therefore one must consult a competent halachic authority before deciding whether a customer is liable for damages.
On the other hand, in a similar ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a customer who purchases goods on consignment is liable in a case of unforeseeable damage – even for merchandise that is undesirable. Even though the customer did not finalize the sale and maintains the right to return the undesirable goods at his own leisure, he is nevertheless responsible for all damage.
Leading halachic authorities explain that although buying merchandise on consignment bears some resemblance to picking up a product for inspection, there is a clear distinction. While in both instances the buyers are not under any obligation and may return the goods, one who simply picks up a product for inspection is merely a potential buyer, and the pending transaction is dependent on his decision. Hence, he is only deemed liable for damages if the product is desirable in the market, since only then can we assume that it is likely he will have ultimately made the purchase. By contrast, one who agrees to sell merchandise on consignment has effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintains the right to return the goods, he already owns them and is liable for all damages until their return. Other leading halachic authorities differ with the above ruling and exempt a buyer of merchandise on consignment in instances of unforeseeable damage – unless the merchandise was desirable and could have been readily sold.
Many of the Torah precepts relevant to this issue have been adopted by the non-Jewish world. The Uniform Commercial Code [UCC 2-326 (1) and (2)] differentiates between a sale contingent on the buyer’s approval, and a sale on consignment; goods held on approval are not subject to claims by the buyer’s creditors, while goods held for sale on consignment are subject to such claims while in the buyer’s possession. Our Torah, brought to us by Moshe thousands of years ago, has set the framework for all judicial systems to emulate, for the wisdom of our Torah bears the truth of Hashem’s justice. It is our Torah obligation that all monetary disputes with fellow Jews be decided by a rabbinical court of law, where we can be assured that justice is based on Torah law.
Sources: Shulhan Aruch Hoshen Mishpat 200:11, Ibid 186:2; Kenneset Hagedola, Hagahot Bet Yosef 186:3; Netivot Hamishpat 186:1; Even Haezel Hilchot Mechira 4; Kehilot Yaakov, Nedarim 24; West Business Law, ninth edition, pg.390.
VERDICT: The Calm after the Storm
Our Bet Din ruled in favor of Harry, awarding him a $7,000 claim against Stanley. As mentioned in Torah Law, since Stanley agreed to sell the merchandise on consignment, he effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintained the right to return the goods, in the interim, for all practical purposes, they belonged to him, deeming him liable for all damages. This ruling was decided by our Bet Din after ascertaining that the merchandise in question was merchantable and very desirable in the commercial market. Hence, this decision concurs with the opinion of all halachic authorities. Nevertheless, the Bet Din suggested that Harry consider Stanley’s general financial difficulties and settle with him for a smaller sum. Harry complied and the two settled the matter peacefully.
In Loving Memory of Vera Bat Carol, A”H
YOU BE THE JUDGE
Cookies and… Scream
Moe and Cindy were returning home Saturday night after spending the weekend with Cindy’s parents. They stopped off at a local ice cream parlor and purchased ice cream cones that they ate in their car in the dark. As Cindy got to the bottom of the cone, she reached with her fingers to the bottom of the cone to eat what seemed to be the last chunk of chocolate. After biting into it, Cindy began screaming and discharged from her mouth a sizeable roach. Utterly repulsed, she repeatedly vomited. After tending to his wife, Moe stormed into the ice cream store and berated the store owner for the incident, demanding compensation for his wife’s mental and emotional anguish. The store owner was sincerely apologetic but refused to resolve the matter that evening. Moe and Cindy filed a written complaint to our Bet Din, claiming $10,000 in compensation. In Bet Din, the store owner explained that his store had been operating for over nine years and he never encountered a complaint. Furthermore, he recently passed an inspection with the board of health. He felt that the incident was due to circumstances beyond his control and that he should not be liable for the unfortunate experience.
How should the Bet Din rule, in favor of Cindy or the store owner and why?
According to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a potential buyer who picks up a product for inspection is liable for all damage caused while in his possession. The logic behind this ruling is that since a potential buyer can benefit from the right to inspect the product at no cost, he receives a legal status similar to that of a borrower. Hence, he is liable even for damages caused by circumstances beyond his control.
Nevertheless, some restrictions do apply. First, the potential buyer assumes responsibility for damages only if the product is so desirable in the market that it could have easily been sold to another party. If, however, the product is one that is not readily sold, the owner may not collect payment for damages caused by an unforeseeable occurrence. For example, if the product is an outdated electronic device, then, in contrast to the situation mentioned above, it is considered a benefit to the seller that the buyer is even considering making the purchase, and thus the buyer is not considered a borrower when inspecting the product and does not bear liability for damages caused by circumstances beyond his control. It is important to note that this rule can be subject to customary store policies, and therefore one must consult a competent halachic authority before deciding whether a customer is liable for damages.
On the other hand, in a similar ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a customer who purchases goods on consignment is liable in a case of unforeseeable damage – even for merchandise that is undesirable. Even though the customer did not finalize the sale and maintains the right to return the undesirable goods at his own leisure, he is nevertheless responsible for all damage.
Leading halachic authorities explain that although buying merchandise on consignment bears some resemblance to picking up a product for inspection, there is a clear distinction. While in both instances the buyers are not under any obligation and may return the goods, one who simply picks up a product for inspection is merely a potential buyer, and the pending transaction is dependent on his decision. Hence, he is only deemed liable for damages if the product is desirable in the market, since only then can we assume that it is likely he will have ultimately made the purchase. By contrast, one who agrees to sell merchandise on consignment has effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintains the right to return the goods, he already owns them and is liable for all damages until their return. Other leading halachic authorities differ with the above ruling and exempt a buyer of merchandise on consignment in instances of unforeseeable damage – unless the merchandise was desirable and could have been readily sold.
Many of the Torah precepts relevant to this issue have been adopted by the non-Jewish world. The Uniform Commercial Code [UCC 2-326 (1) and (2)] differentiates between a sale contingent on the buyer’s approval, and a sale on consignment; goods held on approval are not subject to claims by the buyer’s creditors, while goods held for sale on consignment are subject to such claims while in the buyer’s possession. Our Torah, brought to us by Moshe thousands of years ago, has set the framework for all judicial systems to emulate, for the wisdom of our Torah bears the truth of Hashem’s justice. It is our Torah obligation that all monetary disputes with fellow Jews be decided by a rabbinical court of law, where we can be assured that justice is based on Torah law.
Sources: Shulhan Aruch Hoshen Mishpat 200:11, Ibid 186:2; Kenneset Hagedola, Hagahot Bet Yosef 186:3; Netivot Hamishpat 186:1; Even Haezel Hilchot Mechira 4; Kehilot Yaakov, Nedarim 24; West Business Law, ninth edition, pg.390.
VERDICT: The Calm after the Storm
Our Bet Din ruled in favor of Harry, awarding him a $7,000 claim against Stanley. As mentioned in Torah Law, since Stanley agreed to sell the merchandise on consignment, he effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintained the right to return the goods, in the interim, for all practical purposes, they belonged to him, deeming him liable for all damages. This ruling was decided by our Bet Din after ascertaining that the merchandise in question was merchantable and very desirable in the commercial market. Hence, this decision concurs with the opinion of all halachic authorities. Nevertheless, the Bet Din suggested that Harry consider Stanley’s general financial difficulties and settle with him for a smaller sum. Harry complied and the two settled the matter peacefully.
In Loving Memory of Vera Bat Carol, A”H
YOU BE THE JUDGE
Cookies and… Scream
Moe and Cindy were returning home Saturday night after spending the weekend with Cindy’s parents. They stopped off at a local ice cream parlor and purchased ice cream cones that they ate in their car in the dark. As Cindy got to the bottom of the cone, she reached with her fingers to the bottom of the cone to eat what seemed to be the last chunk of chocolate. After biting into it, Cindy began screaming and discharged from her mouth a sizeable roach. Utterly repulsed, she repeatedly vomited. After tending to his wife, Moe stormed into the ice cream store and berated the store owner for the incident, demanding compensation for his wife’s mental and emotional anguish. The store owner was sincerely apologetic but refused to resolve the matter that evening. Moe and Cindy filed a written complaint to our Bet Din, claiming $10,000 in compensation. In Bet Din, the store owner explained that his store had been operating for over nine years and he never encountered a complaint. Furthermore, he recently passed an inspection with the board of health. He felt that the incident was due to circumstances beyond his control and that he should not be liable for the unfortunate experience.
How should the Bet Din rule, in favor of Cindy or the store owner and why?
According to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a potential buyer who picks up a product for inspection is liable for all damage caused while in his possession. The logic behind this ruling is that since a potential buyer can benefit from the right to inspect the product at no cost, he receives a legal status similar to that of a borrower. Hence, he is liable even for damages caused by circumstances beyond his control.
Nevertheless, some restrictions do apply. First, the potential buyer assumes responsibility for damages only if the product is so desirable in the market that it could have easily been sold to another party. If, however, the product is one that is not readily sold, the owner may not collect payment for damages caused by an unforeseeable occurrence. For example, if the product is an outdated electronic device, then, in contrast to the situation mentioned above, it is considered a benefit to the seller that the buyer is even considering making the purchase, and thus the buyer is not considered a borrower when inspecting the product and does not bear liability for damages caused by circumstances beyond his control. It is important to note that this rule can be subject to customary store policies, and therefore one must consult a competent halachic authority before deciding whether a customer is liable for damages.
On the other hand, in a similar ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a customer who purchases goods on consignment is liable in a case of unforeseeable damage – even for merchandise that is undesirable. Even though the customer did not finalize the sale and maintains the right to return the undesirable goods at his own leisure, he is nevertheless responsible for all damage.
Leading halachic authorities explain that although buying merchandise on consignment bears some resemblance to picking up a product for inspection, there is a clear distinction. While in both instances the buyers are not under any obligation and may return the goods, one who simply picks up a product for inspection is merely a potential buyer, and the pending transaction is dependent on his decision. Hence, he is only deemed liable for damages if the product is desirable in the market, since only then can we assume that it is likely he will have ultimately made the purchase. By contrast, one who agrees to sell merchandise on consignment has effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintains the right to return the goods, he already owns them and is liable for all damages until their return. Other leading halachic authorities differ with the above ruling and exempt a buyer of merchandise on consignment in instances of unforeseeable damage – unless the merchandise was desirable and could have been readily sold.
Many of the Torah precepts relevant to this issue have been adopted by the non-Jewish world. The Uniform Commercial Code [UCC 2-326 (1) and (2)] differentiates between a sale contingent on the buyer’s approval, and a sale on consignment; goods held on approval are not subject to claims by the buyer’s creditors, while goods held for sale on consignment are subject to such claims while in the buyer’s possession. Our Torah, brought to us by Moshe thousands of years ago, has set the framework for all judicial systems to emulate, for the wisdom of our Torah bears the truth of Hashem’s justice. It is our Torah obligation that all monetary disputes with fellow Jews be decided by a rabbinical court of law, where we can be assured that justice is based on Torah law.
Sources: Shulhan Aruch Hoshen Mishpat 200:11, Ibid 186:2; Kenneset Hagedola, Hagahot Bet Yosef 186:3; Netivot Hamishpat 186:1; Even Haezel Hilchot Mechira 4; Kehilot Yaakov, Nedarim 24; West Business Law, ninth edition, pg.390.
VERDICT: The Calm after the Storm
Our Bet Din ruled in favor of Harry, awarding him a $7,000 claim against Stanley. As mentioned in Torah Law, since Stanley agreed to sell the merchandise on consignment, he effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintained the right to return the goods, in the interim, for all practical purposes, they belonged to him, deeming him liable for all damages. This ruling was decided by our Bet Din after ascertaining that the merchandise in question was merchantable and very desirable in the commercial market. Hence, this decision concurs with the opinion of all halachic authorities. Nevertheless, the Bet Din suggested that Harry consider Stanley’s general financial difficulties and settle with him for a smaller sum. Harry complied and the two settled the matter peacefully.
In Loving Memory of Vera Bat Carol, A”H
YOU BE THE JUDGE
Cookies and… Scream
Moe and Cindy were returning home Saturday night after spending the weekend with Cindy’s parents. They stopped off at a local ice cream parlor and purchased ice cream cones that they ate in their car in the dark. As Cindy got to the bottom of the cone, she reached with her fingers to the bottom of the cone to eat what seemed to be the last chunk of chocolate. After biting into it, Cindy began screaming and discharged from her mouth a sizeable roach. Utterly repulsed, she repeatedly vomited. After tending to his wife, Moe stormed into the ice cream store and berated the store owner for the incident, demanding compensation for his wife’s mental and emotional anguish. The store owner was sincerely apologetic but refused to resolve the matter that evening. Moe and Cindy filed a written complaint to our Bet Din, claiming $10,000 in compensation. In Bet Din, the store owner explained that his store had been operating for over nine years and he never encountered a complaint. Furthermore, he recently passed an inspection with the board of health. He felt that the incident was due to circumstances beyond his control and that he should not be liable for the unfortunate experience.
How should the Bet Din rule, in favor of Cindy or the store owner and why?
Stanley, a jobber, regularly buys and sells varied merchandise at a small profit. Upon striking a deal to purchase from Harry $7,000 worth of goods, the two agreed that the sale would be on consignment. Stanley stored the merchandise in his private garage, which was protected by a surveillance camera and a sophisticated alarm system. But when Hurricane Milton swept across the Southeast Coast, a tree fell on the garage, starting an electrical fire that caused permanent damage to the merchandise. Stanley immediately notified Harry of the unfortunate turn of events and told him that he had no intention of paying for the goods since they were bought on consignment. Harry did not respond to Stanley but rather summoned him to Bet Din claiming $7,000 in compensation for the lost merchandise. In Bet Din, Stanley explained that although the merchandise was lost while in his domain, by definition of consignment, Harry had retained ownership of the goods until they were sold. Since Harry was the owner of the merchandise, he is to sustain the loss. Harry defended his claim stating simply that while Stanley maintained the right to return the merchandise at any time, if he fails to return the goods for any reason, he is liable for payment.
According to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a potential buyer who picks up a product for inspection is liable for all damage caused while in his possession. The logic behind this ruling is that since a potential buyer can benefit from the right to inspect the product at no cost, he receives a legal status similar to that of a borrower. Hence, he is liable even for damages caused by circumstances beyond his control.
Nevertheless, some restrictions do apply. First, the potential buyer assumes responsibility for damages only if the product is so desirable in the market that it could have easily been sold to another party. If, however, the product is one that is not readily sold, the owner may not collect payment for damages caused by an unforeseeable occurrence. For example, if the product is an outdated electronic device, then, in contrast to the situation mentioned above, it is considered a benefit to the seller that the buyer is even considering making the purchase, and thus the buyer is not considered a borrower when inspecting the product and does not bear liability for damages caused by circumstances beyond his control. It is important to note that this rule can be subject to customary store policies, and therefore one must consult a competent halachic authority before deciding whether a customer is liable for damages.
On the other hand, in a similar ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a customer who purchases goods on consignment is liable in a case of unforeseeable damage – even for merchandise that is undesirable. Even though the customer did not finalize the sale and maintains the right to return the undesirable goods at his own leisure, he is nevertheless responsible for all damage.
Leading halachic authorities explain that although buying merchandise on consignment bears some resemblance to picking up a product for inspection, there is a clear distinction. While in both instances the buyers are not under any obligation and may return the goods, one who simply picks up a product for inspection is merely a potential buyer, and the pending transaction is dependent on his decision. Hence, he is only deemed liable for damages if the product is desirable in the market, since only then can we assume that it is likely he will have ultimately made the purchase. By contrast, one who agrees to sell merchandise on consignment has effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintains the right to return the goods, he already owns them and is liable for all damages until their return. Other leading halachic authorities differ with the above ruling and exempt a buyer of merchandise on consignment in instances of unforeseeable damage – unless the merchandise was desirable and could have been readily sold.
Many of the Torah precepts relevant to this issue have been adopted by the non-Jewish world. The Uniform Commercial Code [UCC 2-326 (1) and (2)] differentiates between a sale contingent on the buyer’s approval, and a sale on consignment; goods held on approval are not subject to claims by the buyer’s creditors, while goods held for sale on consignment are subject to such claims while in the buyer’s possession. Our Torah, brought to us by Moshe thousands of years ago, has set the framework for all judicial systems to emulate, for the wisdom of our Torah bears the truth of Hashem’s justice. It is our Torah obligation that all monetary disputes with fellow Jews be decided by a rabbinical court of law, where we can be assured that justice is based on Torah law.
Sources: Shulhan Aruch Hoshen Mishpat 200:11, Ibid 186:2; Kenneset Hagedola, Hagahot Bet Yosef 186:3; Netivot Hamishpat 186:1; Even Haezel Hilchot Mechira 4; Kehilot Yaakov, Nedarim 24; West Business Law, ninth edition, pg.390.
VERDICT: The Calm after the Storm
Our Bet Din ruled in favor of Harry, awarding him a $7,000 claim against Stanley. As mentioned in Torah Law, since Stanley agreed to sell the merchandise on consignment, he effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintained the right to return the goods, in the interim, for all practical purposes, they belonged to him, deeming him liable for all damages. This ruling was decided by our Bet Din after ascertaining that the merchandise in question was merchantable and very desirable in the commercial market. Hence, this decision concurs with the opinion of all halachic authorities. Nevertheless, the Bet Din suggested that Harry consider Stanley’s general financial difficulties and settle with him for a smaller sum. Harry complied and the two settled the matter peacefully.
In Loving Memory of Vera Bat Carol, A”H
YOU BE THE JUDGE
Cookies and… Scream
Moe and Cindy were returning home Saturday night after spending the weekend with Cindy’s parents. They stopped off at a local ice cream parlor and purchased ice cream cones that they ate in their car in the dark. As Cindy got to the bottom of the cone, she reached with her fingers to the bottom of the cone to eat what seemed to be the last chunk of chocolate. After biting into it, Cindy began screaming and discharged from her mouth a sizeable roach. Utterly repulsed, she repeatedly vomited. After tending to his wife, Moe stormed into the ice cream store and berated the store owner for the incident, demanding compensation for his wife’s mental and emotional anguish. The store owner was sincerely apologetic but refused to resolve the matter that evening. Moe and Cindy filed a written complaint to our Bet Din, claiming $10,000 in compensation. In Bet Din, the store owner explained that his store had been operating for over nine years and he never encountered a complaint. Furthermore, he recently passed an inspection with the board of health. He felt that the incident was due to circumstances beyond his control and that he should not be liable for the unfortunate experience.
How should the Bet Din rule, in favor of Cindy or the store owner and why?
Nevertheless, some restrictions do apply. First, the potential buyer assumes responsibility for damages only if the product is so desirable in the market that it could have easily been sold to another party. If, however, the product is one that is not readily sold, the owner may not collect payment for damages caused by an unforeseeable occurrence. For example, if the product is an outdated electronic device, then, in contrast to the situation mentioned above, it is considered a benefit to the seller that the buyer is even considering making the purchase, and thus the buyer is not considered a borrower when inspecting the product and does not bear liability for damages caused by circumstances beyond his control. It is important to note that this rule can be subject to customary store policies, and therefore one must consult a competent halachic authority before deciding whether a customer is liable for damages.
On the other hand, in a similar ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a customer who purchases goods on consignment is liable in a case of unforeseeable damage – even for merchandise that is undesirable. Even though the customer did not finalize the sale and maintains the right to return the undesirable goods at his own leisure, he is nevertheless responsible for all damage.
Leading halachic authorities explain that although buying merchandise on consignment bears some resemblance to picking up a product for inspection, there is a clear distinction. While in both instances the buyers are not under any obligation and may return the goods, one who simply picks up a product for inspection is merely a potential buyer, and the pending transaction is dependent on his decision. Hence, he is only deemed liable for damages if the product is desirable in the market, since only then can we assume that it is likely he will have ultimately made the purchase. By contrast, one who agrees to sell merchandise on consignment has effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintains the right to return the goods, he already owns them and is liable for all damages until their return. Other leading halachic authorities differ with the above ruling and exempt a buyer of merchandise on consignment in instances of unforeseeable damage – unless the merchandise was desirable and could have been readily sold.
Many of the Torah precepts relevant to this issue have been adopted by the non-Jewish world. The Uniform Commercial Code [UCC 2-326 (1) and (2)] differentiates between a sale contingent on the buyer’s approval, and a sale on consignment; goods held on approval are not subject to claims by the buyer’s creditors, while goods held for sale on consignment are subject to such claims while in the buyer’s possession. Our Torah, brought to us by Moshe thousands of years ago, has set the framework for all judicial systems to emulate, for the wisdom of our Torah bears the truth of Hashem’s justice. It is our Torah obligation that all monetary disputes with fellow Jews be decided by a rabbinical court of law, where we can be assured that justice is based on Torah law.
Sources: Shulhan Aruch Hoshen Mishpat 200:11, Ibid 186:2; Kenneset Hagedola, Hagahot Bet Yosef 186:3; Netivot Hamishpat 186:1; Even Haezel Hilchot Mechira 4; Kehilot Yaakov, Nedarim 24; West Business Law, ninth edition, pg.390.
VERDICT: The Calm after the Storm
Our Bet Din ruled in favor of Harry, awarding him a $7,000 claim against Stanley. As mentioned in Torah Law, since Stanley agreed to sell the merchandise on consignment, he effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintained the right to return the goods, in the interim, for all practical purposes, they belonged to him, deeming him liable for all damages. This ruling was decided by our Bet Din after ascertaining that the merchandise in question was merchantable and very desirable in the commercial market. Hence, this decision concurs with the opinion of all halachic authorities. Nevertheless, the Bet Din suggested that Harry consider Stanley’s general financial difficulties and settle with him for a smaller sum. Harry complied and the two settled the matter peacefully.
In Loving Memory of Vera Bat Carol, A”H
YOU BE THE JUDGE
Cookies and… Scream
Moe and Cindy were returning home Saturday night after spending the weekend with Cindy’s parents. They stopped off at a local ice cream parlor and purchased ice cream cones that they ate in their car in the dark. As Cindy got to the bottom of the cone, she reached with her fingers to the bottom of the cone to eat what seemed to be the last chunk of chocolate. After biting into it, Cindy began screaming and discharged from her mouth a sizeable roach. Utterly repulsed, she repeatedly vomited. After tending to his wife, Moe stormed into the ice cream store and berated the store owner for the incident, demanding compensation for his wife’s mental and emotional anguish. The store owner was sincerely apologetic but refused to resolve the matter that evening. Moe and Cindy filed a written complaint to our Bet Din, claiming $10,000 in compensation. In Bet Din, the store owner explained that his store had been operating for over nine years and he never encountered a complaint. Furthermore, he recently passed an inspection with the board of health. He felt that the incident was due to circumstances beyond his control and that he should not be liable for the unfortunate experience.
How should the Bet Din rule, in favor of Cindy or the store owner and why?
According to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a potential buyer who picks up a product for inspection is liable for all damage caused while in his possession. The logic behind this ruling is that since a potential buyer can benefit from the right to inspect the product at no cost, he receives a legal status similar to that of a borrower. Hence, he is liable even for damages caused by circumstances beyond his control.
Nevertheless, some restrictions do apply. First, the potential buyer assumes responsibility for damages only if the product is so desirable in the market that it could have easily been sold to another party. If, however, the product is one that is not readily sold, the owner may not collect payment for damages caused by an unforeseeable occurrence. For example, if the product is an outdated electronic device, then, in contrast to the situation mentioned above, it is considered a benefit to the seller that the buyer is even considering making the purchase, and thus the buyer is not considered a borrower when inspecting the product and does not bear liability for damages caused by circumstances beyond his control. It is important to note that this rule can be subject to customary store policies, and therefore one must consult a competent halachic authority before deciding whether a customer is liable for damages.
On the other hand, in a similar ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a customer who purchases goods on consignment is liable in a case of unforeseeable damage – even for merchandise that is undesirable. Even though the customer did not finalize the sale and maintains the right to return the undesirable goods at his own leisure, he is nevertheless responsible for all damage.
Leading halachic authorities explain that although buying merchandise on consignment bears some resemblance to picking up a product for inspection, there is a clear distinction. While in both instances the buyers are not under any obligation and may return the goods, one who simply picks up a product for inspection is merely a potential buyer, and the pending transaction is dependent on his decision. Hence, he is only deemed liable for damages if the product is desirable in the market, since only then can we assume that it is likely he will have ultimately made the purchase. By contrast, one who agrees to sell merchandise on consignment has effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintains the right to return the goods, he already owns them and is liable for all damages until their return. Other leading halachic authorities differ with the above ruling and exempt a buyer of merchandise on consignment in instances of unforeseeable damage – unless the merchandise was desirable and could have been readily sold.
Many of the Torah precepts relevant to this issue have been adopted by the non-Jewish world. The Uniform Commercial Code [UCC 2-326 (1) and (2)] differentiates between a sale contingent on the buyer’s approval, and a sale on consignment; goods held on approval are not subject to claims by the buyer’s creditors, while goods held for sale on consignment are subject to such claims while in the buyer’s possession. Our Torah, brought to us by Moshe thousands of years ago, has set the framework for all judicial systems to emulate, for the wisdom of our Torah bears the truth of Hashem’s justice. It is our Torah obligation that all monetary disputes with fellow Jews be decided by a rabbinical court of law, where we can be assured that justice is based on Torah law.
Sources: Shulhan Aruch Hoshen Mishpat 200:11, Ibid 186:2; Kenneset Hagedola, Hagahot Bet Yosef 186:3; Netivot Hamishpat 186:1; Even Haezel Hilchot Mechira 4; Kehilot Yaakov, Nedarim 24; West Business Law, ninth edition, pg.390.
VERDICT: The Calm after the Storm
Our Bet Din ruled in favor of Harry, awarding him a $7,000 claim against Stanley. As mentioned in Torah Law, since Stanley agreed to sell the merchandise on consignment, he effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintained the right to return the goods, in the interim, for all practical purposes, they belonged to him, deeming him liable for all damages. This ruling was decided by our Bet Din after ascertaining that the merchandise in question was merchantable and very desirable in the commercial market. Hence, this decision concurs with the opinion of all halachic authorities. Nevertheless, the Bet Din suggested that Harry consider Stanley’s general financial difficulties and settle with him for a smaller sum. Harry complied and the two settled the matter peacefully.
In Loving Memory of Vera Bat Carol, A”H
YOU BE THE JUDGE
Cookies and… Scream
Moe and Cindy were returning home Saturday night after spending the weekend with Cindy’s parents. They stopped off at a local ice cream parlor and purchased ice cream cones that they ate in their car in the dark. As Cindy got to the bottom of the cone, she reached with her fingers to the bottom of the cone to eat what seemed to be the last chunk of chocolate. After biting into it, Cindy began screaming and discharged from her mouth a sizeable roach. Utterly repulsed, she repeatedly vomited. After tending to his wife, Moe stormed into the ice cream store and berated the store owner for the incident, demanding compensation for his wife’s mental and emotional anguish. The store owner was sincerely apologetic but refused to resolve the matter that evening. Moe and Cindy filed a written complaint to our Bet Din, claiming $10,000 in compensation. In Bet Din, the store owner explained that his store had been operating for over nine years and he never encountered a complaint. Furthermore, he recently passed an inspection with the board of health. He felt that the incident was due to circumstances beyond his control and that he should not be liable for the unfortunate experience.
How should the Bet Din rule, in favor of Cindy or the store owner and why?
According to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a potential buyer who picks up a product for inspection is liable for all damage caused while in his possession. The logic behind this ruling is that since a potential buyer can benefit from the right to inspect the product at no cost, he receives a legal status similar to that of a borrower. Hence, he is liable even for damages caused by circumstances beyond his control.
Nevertheless, some restrictions do apply. First, the potential buyer assumes responsibility for damages only if the product is so desirable in the market that it could have easily been sold to another party. If, however, the product is one that is not readily sold, the owner may not collect payment for damages caused by an unforeseeable occurrence. For example, if the product is an outdated electronic device, then, in contrast to the situation mentioned above, it is considered a benefit to the seller that the buyer is even considering making the purchase, and thus the buyer is not considered a borrower when inspecting the product and does not bear liability for damages caused by circumstances beyond his control. It is important to note that this rule can be subject to customary store policies, and therefore one must consult a competent halachic authority before deciding whether a customer is liable for damages.
On the other hand, in a similar ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a customer who purchases goods on consignment is liable in a case of unforeseeable damage – even for merchandise that is undesirable. Even though the customer did not finalize the sale and maintains the right to return the undesirable goods at his own leisure, he is nevertheless responsible for all damage.
Leading halachic authorities explain that although buying merchandise on consignment bears some resemblance to picking up a product for inspection, there is a clear distinction. While in both instances the buyers are not under any obligation and may return the goods, one who simply picks up a product for inspection is merely a potential buyer, and the pending transaction is dependent on his decision. Hence, he is only deemed liable for damages if the product is desirable in the market, since only then can we assume that it is likely he will have ultimately made the purchase. By contrast, one who agrees to sell merchandise on consignment has effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintains the right to return the goods, he already owns them and is liable for all damages until their return. Other leading halachic authorities differ with the above ruling and exempt a buyer of merchandise on consignment in instances of unforeseeable damage – unless the merchandise was desirable and could have been readily sold.
Many of the Torah precepts relevant to this issue have been adopted by the non-Jewish world. The Uniform Commercial Code [UCC 2-326 (1) and (2)] differentiates between a sale contingent on the buyer’s approval, and a sale on consignment; goods held on approval are not subject to claims by the buyer’s creditors, while goods held for sale on consignment are subject to such claims while in the buyer’s possession. Our Torah, brought to us by Moshe thousands of years ago, has set the framework for all judicial systems to emulate, for the wisdom of our Torah bears the truth of Hashem’s justice. It is our Torah obligation that all monetary disputes with fellow Jews be decided by a rabbinical court of law, where we can be assured that justice is based on Torah law.
Sources: Shulhan Aruch Hoshen Mishpat 200:11, Ibid 186:2; Kenneset Hagedola, Hagahot Bet Yosef 186:3; Netivot Hamishpat 186:1; Even Haezel Hilchot Mechira 4; Kehilot Yaakov, Nedarim 24; West Business Law, ninth edition, pg.390.
VERDICT: The Calm after the Storm
Our Bet Din ruled in favor of Harry, awarding him a $7,000 claim against Stanley. As mentioned in Torah Law, since Stanley agreed to sell the merchandise on consignment, he effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintained the right to return the goods, in the interim, for all practical purposes, they belonged to him, deeming him liable for all damages. This ruling was decided by our Bet Din after ascertaining that the merchandise in question was merchantable and very desirable in the commercial market. Hence, this decision concurs with the opinion of all halachic authorities. Nevertheless, the Bet Din suggested that Harry consider Stanley’s general financial difficulties and settle with him for a smaller sum. Harry complied and the two settled the matter peacefully.
In Loving Memory of Vera Bat Carol, A”H
YOU BE THE JUDGE
Cookies and… Scream
Moe and Cindy were returning home Saturday night after spending the weekend with Cindy’s parents. They stopped off at a local ice cream parlor and purchased ice cream cones that they ate in their car in the dark. As Cindy got to the bottom of the cone, she reached with her fingers to the bottom of the cone to eat what seemed to be the last chunk of chocolate. After biting into it, Cindy began screaming and discharged from her mouth a sizeable roach. Utterly repulsed, she repeatedly vomited. After tending to his wife, Moe stormed into the ice cream store and berated the store owner for the incident, demanding compensation for his wife’s mental and emotional anguish. The store owner was sincerely apologetic but refused to resolve the matter that evening. Moe and Cindy filed a written complaint to our Bet Din, claiming $10,000 in compensation. In Bet Din, the store owner explained that his store had been operating for over nine years and he never encountered a complaint. Furthermore, he recently passed an inspection with the board of health. He felt that the incident was due to circumstances beyond his control and that he should not be liable for the unfortunate experience.
How should the Bet Din rule, in favor of Cindy or the store owner and why?
Stanley, a jobber, regularly buys and sells varied merchandise at a small profit. Upon striking a deal to purchase from Harry $7,000 worth of goods, the two agreed that the sale would be on consignment. Stanley stored the merchandise in his private garage, which was protected by a surveillance camera and a sophisticated alarm system. But when Hurricane Milton swept across the Southeast Coast, a tree fell on the garage, starting an electrical fire that caused permanent damage to the merchandise. Stanley immediately notified Harry of the unfortunate turn of events and told him that he had no intention of paying for the goods since they were bought on consignment. Harry did not respond to Stanley but rather summoned him to Bet Din claiming $7,000 in compensation for the lost merchandise. In Bet Din, Stanley explained that although the merchandise was lost while in his domain, by definition of consignment, Harry had retained ownership of the goods until they were sold. Since Harry was the owner of the merchandise, he is to sustain the loss. Harry defended his claim stating simply that while Stanley maintained the right to return the merchandise at any time, if he fails to return the goods for any reason, he is liable for payment.
According to the ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a potential buyer who picks up a product for inspection is liable for all damage caused while in his possession. The logic behind this ruling is that since a potential buyer can benefit from the right to inspect the product at no cost, he receives a legal status similar to that of a borrower. Hence, he is liable even for damages caused by circumstances beyond his control.
Nevertheless, some restrictions do apply. First, the potential buyer assumes responsibility for damages only if the product is so desirable in the market that it could have easily been sold to another party. If, however, the product is one that is not readily sold, the owner may not collect payment for damages caused by an unforeseeable occurrence. For example, if the product is an outdated electronic device, then, in contrast to the situation mentioned above, it is considered a benefit to the seller that the buyer is even considering making the purchase, and thus the buyer is not considered a borrower when inspecting the product and does not bear liability for damages caused by circumstances beyond his control. It is important to note that this rule can be subject to customary store policies, and therefore one must consult a competent halachic authority before deciding whether a customer is liable for damages.
On the other hand, in a similar ruling of the Shulhan Aruch, a customer who purchases goods on consignment is liable in a case of unforeseeable damage – even for merchandise that is undesirable. Even though the customer did not finalize the sale and maintains the right to return the undesirable goods at his own leisure, he is nevertheless responsible for all damage.
Leading halachic authorities explain that although buying merchandise on consignment bears some resemblance to picking up a product for inspection, there is a clear distinction. While in both instances the buyers are not under any obligation and may return the goods, one who simply picks up a product for inspection is merely a potential buyer, and the pending transaction is dependent on his decision. Hence, he is only deemed liable for damages if the product is desirable in the market, since only then can we assume that it is likely he will have ultimately made the purchase. By contrast, one who agrees to sell merchandise on consignment has effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintains the right to return the goods, he already owns them and is liable for all damages until their return. Other leading halachic authorities differ with the above ruling and exempt a buyer of merchandise on consignment in instances of unforeseeable damage – unless the merchandise was desirable and could have been readily sold.
Many of the Torah precepts relevant to this issue have been adopted by the non-Jewish world. The Uniform Commercial Code [UCC 2-326 (1) and (2)] differentiates between a sale contingent on the buyer’s approval, and a sale on consignment; goods held on approval are not subject to claims by the buyer’s creditors, while goods held for sale on consignment are subject to such claims while in the buyer’s possession. Our Torah, brought to us by Moshe thousands of years ago, has set the framework for all judicial systems to emulate, for the wisdom of our Torah bears the truth of Hashem’s justice. It is our Torah obligation that all monetary disputes with fellow Jews be decided by a rabbinical court of law, where we can be assured that justice is based on Torah law.
Sources: Shulhan Aruch Hoshen Mishpat 200:11, Ibid 186:2; Kenneset Hagedola, Hagahot Bet Yosef 186:3; Netivot Hamishpat 186:1; Even Haezel Hilchot Mechira 4; Kehilot Yaakov, Nedarim 24; West Business Law, ninth edition, pg.390.
VERDICT: The Calm after the Storm
Our Bet Din ruled in favor of Harry, awarding him a $7,000 claim against Stanley. As mentioned in Torah Law, since Stanley agreed to sell the merchandise on consignment, he effectively acquired the goods by his choice to sell them at a profit. Although he maintained the right to return the goods, in the interim, for all practical purposes, they belonged to him, deeming him liable for all damages. This ruling was decided by our Bet Din after ascertaining that the merchandise in question was merchantable and very desirable in the commercial market. Hence, this decision concurs with the opinion of all halachic authorities. Nevertheless, the Bet Din suggested that Harry consider Stanley’s general financial difficulties and settle with him for a smaller sum. Harry complied and the two settled the matter peacefully.
In Loving Memory of Vera Bat Carol, A”H
YOU BE THE JUDGE
Cookies and… Scream
Moe and Cindy were returning home Saturday night after spending the weekend with Cindy’s parents. They stopped off at a local ice cream parlor and purchased ice cream cones that they ate in their car in the dark. As Cindy got to the bottom of the cone, she reached with her fingers to the bottom of the cone to eat what seemed to be the last chunk of chocolate. After biting into it, Cindy began screaming and discharged from her mouth a sizeable roach. Utterly repulsed, she repeatedly vomited. After tending to his wife, Moe stormed into the ice cream store and berated the store owner for the incident, demanding compensation for his wife’s mental and emotional anguish. The store owner was sincerely apologetic but refused to resolve the matter that evening. Moe and Cindy filed a written complaint to our Bet Din, claiming $10,000 in compensation. In Bet Din, the store owner explained that his store had been operating for over nine years and he never encountered a complaint. Furthermore, he recently passed an inspection with the board of health. He felt that the incident was due to circumstances beyond his control and that he should not be liable for the unfortunate experience.
How should the Bet Din rule, in favor of Cindy or the store owner and why?