I live in a small town where people often come to spend Shabbos. Since there is no hotel in town, I and many others rent out rooms for Shabbos. A group of Chassidim was interested in renting any available rooms for a particular Shabbos. In order to prevent price gouging the group surreptitiously approached all the people who generally rent out rooms for Shabbos, on an individual basis, and succeeded in renting ninety-five percent of the available rooms for that Shabbos. Based on their success, their rebbe decided to spend that Shabbos in our town, which was their original goal. When I got wind of what was happening, I informed my renter that I was canceling the rental since I was deceived and I proceeded to rent to others at double the price. My renter claims that my cancellation was illegal and what I did was to rent out his apartment and therefore, I owe him the money that I collected. Is he correct?
Answer
The first question that we must examine is whether you are allowed to raise your price because of the unusually high demand or is that considered overcharging.
The general rule that the Gemara (Erkin 24A) derives from a pasuk is that valuation is determined by time and place. Thus, when a person buys an object from hekdeish he must pay the price that is charged for that particular object on that day at that place and the valuation is not affected by the fact that the next day or in the next place the price is or will be higher. Thus, based on this Gemara, the Rosh (res. 80, 4: BK 1,5) whose ruling is cited by SA (101, 9), rules that if a person repays a monetary loan with goods, we evaluate the goods based on their price on the date and at the place when and where repayment took place.
Similarly, the Shulchan Aruch HaRav (Ono'o seif 1) and others rule that the determinant if the sales price is considered overcharging or not is the price on the date and at the place of the sale. Therefore, if on the particular day that you are renting out your property the price is unusually high, you may charge that price and your renter may not accuse you of overcharging because you took advantage of the unusually high demand.
Your claim is that you were tricked into charging the usual price when the price on the date of the rental was really much higher than you charged and that should constitute a mekach to'us which is null and void.
In fact, there is a case in the Gemara (Kesubos 97A) that seems to support your position. The Gemara tells that there was a famine in Nahardo'o which caused the price of grain to skyrocket. In order to buy grain, many of the townspeople sold their property. When a new supply of grain arrived in Nahardo'o, Rav Nachman ruled that all of the property sales were invalid because the people would not have sold their property if they had known that grain would arrive imminently and that the price will return to usual.
The Gemara explains that the reason we take into account future circumstances is because the boats carrying the grain were already en route to Nahardo'o and were due to arrive shortly. Since the reason the people sold their property was due to lack of knowledge, the sales were invalid and they are considered a mekach to'us. Thus, we see that contracts based on lack of information are considered a mekach to'us. Thus, perhaps, since had you known that the Rebbe was coming you would have charged more, your original rental was a mekach to'us.
However, there is a basic difference between your case and the case of the Gemara. In the case of the Gemara the entire sale was based on lack of information, whereas in your case your lack of information only led to undercharging. This appears to fall into the category of ono'o and not mekach to'us. If so, since there is no ono'o on sales or rentals of land, you do not have a case.
Thus, we must determine whether a sale whose price was incorrect due to lack of information is classified as mekach to'us or ono'o.
There are several proofs that it is a mekach to'us. One proof is from the commentary of the Rashbo (BM 76A) that is ruled by the Ramo in SA (332, 4) concerning workers who contracted to work for an employer at the going rate that the employer paid his per diem workers. However, the employer told them a price that was lower than what he actually paid. The Rashbo says that the Bavli, which is authoritative, rules that the contract is void. Since the rules of ono'o do not apply in this case, it is clear that Bavli maintains that the contract is void because it is a mekach to'us. In this case, we see that incorrect prices based on lack of knowledge are considered mekach to'us.
Another case in SA from where this can be proven concerns the sale of debt notes. SA (126, 10) rules that if a person sold a debt note and the purchaser was unaware that the borrower was a poor person, the sale is invalid. The Ketsos (126, 9) asks that the rules of ono'o do not apply to sales of debt notes. The Ketsos answers that since the sales price was based on lack of information the sale constitutes a mekach to'us and that is the reason the sale is void.
Based on the this it might seem that you were correct in canceling the first rental since you were lacking the information that the rebbe was planning to spend Shabbos in your community at the time that you rented and therefore, that rental was a mekach to'us.
However, there are several reasons why the rental was not a mekach to'us. One reason is based on the Gemara in Kesubos that we cited earlier. The Gemara says that the only reason that the sale constituted a mekach to'us is because at the time of the sale the grain was already en route to Nahardo'o. If it had not been en route, and the grain was only shipped after the people sold their property, their sale would have been valid.
In your case the Rebbe only decided to spend Shabbos in your community after his followers successfully rented apartments at the usual price. Therefore, it was not a fact that the Rebbe was going to be spending Shabbos in your community at the time of your rental. Thus, it was not a mekach to'us.
A second reason is that since the followers were successful in renting apartments at their usual price and thwarted price gouging, the price you received was, even at the time of your rental, the correct price. Since only if the price was incorrect did the rental constitute a mekach to'us, and since the price your renter agreed to pay turned out to be correct, the rental agreement was valid. Thus, you acted improperly.
A third reason is somewhat different. Whereas the first two reasons are based on actual laws of mekach to'us, the third reason is not based on strict law but that your behavior is not in keeping with the spirit of the law. The Mishna (Gittin 59B) rules that if A banged on an olive tree causing olives to fall to the ground, B may not take the olives. Even though A never formally acquired the olives since he did not perform an act of kinyan, nevertheless, the Rabbonon enacted that if B takes the olives he is classified as a thief.
Similarly, Tosafos (Kiddushin 59A) cites R. Meir the father of Rabbeinu Tam who explained the Gemara that if A put out bait to catch fish, B may not take the fish that were attracted to a place by A's bait.
Based on this explanation of R. Meir, the Maharshdam (CM 259) ruled concerning the case of a Jew who convinced the local authorities that it would be economically advisable to manufacture a material and then proceeded to rent from the govt. a facility to produce that material. After fifty years, another person wanted to open a rival business to manufacture the material and the Maharshdam forbade him from doing so. One reason that he gives is that the only reason the govt. ever allowed the manufacture of the material was due to the first person's efforts. Therefore, the new person may not utilize the first person's efforts to compete with him.
Similarly, in your situation, if the Rebbe had not come there would not have been any unusual demand and the owners would not have had the ability to raise prices. Therefore, it is not proper to use the Rebbe's presence to his detriment by raising the prices for the chassidim that he attracted.
Since you could not cancel the rental of your property, when you rented out your property you rented it out on behalf of your renter. Therefore, you must turn over to him the rent you collected on his behalf.
