Recently, there was a three to four day blackout affecting the entire community. Some shuls have simcha halls that were rented out for occasions such as bar mitzvah parties and had to be held in supplemental lighting using generators but without a/c. Are the baalei simcha of these affairs entitled to a refund or is this something which was beyond the control of the baalei batim. The simcha was held in the halls without a/c so the basic service was performed. If l’mashal the hall rental was 500 dollars for the affair, what, if anything, should a baal simcha be entitled to? Can you give me some mareh mekomos to look into? Yasher Koach.
Answer:
This is a case of “makas medinah”: a “natural disaster” whereby the renter is not the only affected party, but rather everybody is affected. Therefore, if there is a loss, the loss is suffered by the owner of the hall, and not by the tenant.
The question here is whether there is any concrete loss or not, which will permit the baalei simcha to take something off from the payment. It can be suggested that a hall without a/c is worth less, and that there is therefore a “loss” in this sense.
However, the fact that the baal simcha went ahead with the event, without saying anything in advance, is of great significance.
If a baal simcha would have approached the hall owner before the occasion, and informed him that on account of the power blackout he wishes to back out of the affair, the baal simcha will be in his rights to do so, and the owner will not be able to object. Alternatively, the baal simcha could have agreed on a reduced price in advance.
However, having gone ahead with the affair, the action will be considered as a mechilah — foregoing of his right to null the agreement — and therefore a tacit agreement to the original terms.
It therefore appears that the full payment must be paid.
Sources:
For the question of a makas medinah — for instance, if a person rents out an apartment for purposes of living, and the apartment is then flooded (who suffers the loss) — see Bava Metzia 10b and Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 322; see also Rema 321:1.
The Gemara explains as follows: Someone rented a field for an agreed sum in order to sow therein and reap the crops annually, and then a general drought occurred, affecting all the fields of the area. In this case, the tenant may reduce his rental and pay a lower price than originally agreed. On the other hand, if the drought or locusts affected only the field of the tenant, he must continue to pay the full price.
The rationale behind this is that in the case of a general drought affecting all the fields, we consider that it is the bad luck of the the owner which caused the loss, and therefore he has to bear the loss and accept a lower rental. However, if the drought or the plague is a local one, affecting only this single field of the tenant, then we consider that it is his bad luck which caused the damage and he must suffer the loss and continue to pay the full price of the rental.
For the question of carrying out the agreement, and thereby foregoing one’s rights, see Choshen Mishpat 232:3, and nosei keilim. The same principle will apply for the rental of the hall.
A followup question:
Is the officer of the shul allowed to do a peshara and return a partial amount as an act of goodwill lifnim mishuiras hadin or is this a case of being frum on yenem’s cheshbon since this is mamon hatzibur and therefore he would not be allowed to return the money?
This is a delicate issue. Rav Blau, in his Mishpat U-Tzedaka (7:22), writes that if the officer would make a peshara with his own money, he can also do so with community money. This is particularly true if the act of goodwill is required to avoid a dispute. However, if it is merely an act of goodwill, and not giving the money won’t do any harm or cause any ill-will, then it’s better not to do so.
Leave a comment