Question:

I was asked if I can buy a expesive item for my friend and to lay out the money. I bought it and a אונס happened on the way back. I told him he has to pay because I was a shomer chinum– he claims that he was never Koneh it and he is very sorry but it is my loss (Chutzpah!!)– who is right??

Answer:

Excellent question. The answer is you both are right. There is a dispute between the Shach and Nesivos on this very question. The Shach says that if the sender did not tell the sheliach that he takes responsibility the shliach has to bear the full loss but the Nesivos disagrees and holds that since the sheliach forked out money on the request of the sender he is considered his sheliach and therefore the sender has to absorb the loss. Also even according to the Nesivos the sender can claim that the shliach was neglegant which means that the sheliach has to swear that he wasn’t. Since now days people don’t swear in Beis Din they are required to pay something e.g. a third, so even according to the Nesivos the shliach only gets 2/3 of the value of the item lost. (All the above is applicable if the sender told the sheliach to “buy” him an item but if he told him “bring” me an item, then the shliach is responsible because  the item belongs to him until he brings it back and receives money from the sender. For the sheliach to have any claim he has to prove that the sender said explicitly to him “buy” for me the item).

Sources:

CH:M 176 Shach 43 Nesivos 43, CH:M 183:4

Share The Knowledge

4 Responses to “shlichut”

  1. You should see siman 182 Shac”h 2 and Nesivos 2. You’ll see the shoeil is right and the mocheir has to pay. You probably should get back to the shliach and tell him this was a mistake.[Unless you’re relying on thte Igros Moshe who paskens like the Darkei Moshe that there’s a machlokes bet. the Remah and Rabeinu Yerucham, which is a tremendous chiddush against most poskim and it’s not nogea in all cases as you can see from the teshuva…… I highly doubt that was you’re intention, bec. you would’ve mentioned that the ikar halacha is to be mechayeiv the meshaleiach – maybe there’s room to be mefasheir.]

    • See CH:H 176 Shach 43 & Nesivos 43.

  2. what about the Shulchan Aurach (קפג-ד( which says that the mshalach was koneh– and the kzot (קפג,ד) ‘ which says that even if he wasn’t koneh he is still Chaiv because of the דין ערב????

    • See CH:H 176 Shach 43 & Nesivos 43.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *