The new clothes dryer released surprising smoke: who will pay?
The new electrical appliance turned out to be broken.
So who is right, the seller or the buyer?
Fascinating weekly section in Vala!
Judaism in cooperation with the teaching house by the Chabad Halacha Institute
Aryeh Zamir, submitted on behalf of Shoba Israel
09/18/2022
Sunday, September 18, 2022, 09:55 Updated: 10:06
Share on Facebook
Share on WhatsApp
Share on Twitter
Share by email
Share in general
Who was right? (Photo: ShutterStock)
Walla!
Judaism in collaboration with the teaching house by the Chabad Halacha Institute in a fascinating weekly section: And this week - the new electrical appliance turned out to be broken, who is right, the seller or the buyer?
Background
:
It was one afternoon, when the clothes dryer in Reuven's house stopped working. Hela quickly jumped up to one of the electrical stores in his city to buy a new dryer. Reuven, who had little means, could not afford to buy something luxurious, and chose to go for something 'from a display', without warranty.
Since Reuven left his house in a hurry, he forgot his wallet at home, and he had no way to pay. However, the owner of the shop they knew told him that for him there was no problem if he took the dryer home, and later he would come back to pay him.
When he came home, Reuven connected the new dryer to the outlet and there was smoke rising from the dryer.
He immediately unplugged the dryer, loaded it on the car and returned to the store.
Upon entering the store, Reuven immediately turned to the seller and scolded him, 'How dare you sell me a product that is fundamentally broken?
Didn't I have broken products in my house until I came to buy another broken dryer?'
The shop owner heard everything that happened and then said to Reuven: 'Who said I sold you a broken dryer?
Maybe it got knocked over in your car from the jolts of the road?'
But Reuven is in his element, stubbornly claiming that the seller will take back the broken device he sold him, claiming that it was already broken in the factory, and even threatens not to pay for the device at all!
And the question arises:
who is right?
Can Reuven indeed return the device and not pay, or since it came into his possession and there is no warranty on the device - he must pay for it and cannot return it?
And will the law change if Reuven has already paid for the dryer?
Short answer:
If it is proven that there was a manufacturing defect - then it is considered a mistake and even if he paid he can return it, even if there is doubt as to whether the defect was in the production, with the seller or with the buyer - Reuven cannot cancel the sale on the claim of making a mistake and he must pay, unless he can prove that the product was indeed damaged during production or damaged by the seller.
Answer in detail:
In the case where it is clearly proven that the type of damage was done during production - this is considered a 'mistake' and therefore in this case even if the buyer (Reuven) has already paid for the device, the seller is obliged to return his money or provide him with a replacement device that is in good condition.
If it is proven that a defect was born after production, but there is still doubt as to whether the defect was made with the permission of the seller or with the permission of the buyer, the law is that as long as the reality is satisfied - the buyer does not have permission to cancel the purchase on the claim of 'erroneous purchase'.
And even if he still hasn't paid and the money is in his possession - he is obligated to pay the device fees, but if the buyer proves that he was shocked by the seller's permission, he can claim 'error of purchase'.
The reason for this is, since we say 'here we are - here it was', that is: until it is proven otherwise, we cannot claim that this defect (found in the dryer) was already there before and was only now discovered, but since it was found with the buyer - it probably happened with him, And therefore, even if he has not yet paid, he must pay and he does not have the right to claim that it was a mistake.
Even if it is not clear that the shock was born after the production, but there is a doubt that the shock was done from the time of production or that it was done afterwards with the buyer's permission - it seems to be discussed here as well that the buyer (Reuven) must prove that the shock was made with the seller's permission and in the provided condition he cannot claim a mistake but must pay the device fee in full.
The reason for this is that it is possible that the machine came off the production line damaged, but since it is assumed that not all machines come out damaged, rather - most of the machines come out intact and in good condition, there is no presumption of 'reyota' for the machines here, and therefore, until it is proven otherwise, Reuven the buyer will have to pay for The dryer for the seller.
It is clear that all of the above is in vain, but if the seller received an express warranty for the product's integrity - he is obliged to accept his condition and allow Reuven to return the machine to him or to receive another in its place, unless he can prove that it was damaged in Reuven's possession
. :), Chulin (N:), Shu'a Chom RL 23 and Sam'e Skala 5, and refer to the Sefer Zif HaKedshim (RL 21A) and the book Shemoro Mishpat 3. 32.
There is no halachic ruling in this section and one should contact the rabbi or the house of instruction in each individual case.
Written by Rabbi Yitzhak Eitan Mizrahi, Chabad Halacha Institute.
For comments: publish@smslarav.co.il
Judaism
magazine
Tags
Judaism
