Avodah Mailing List

Volume 43: Number 40

Sun, 29 Jun 2025

• 1. Re: agency (Arie Folger)
• 2. Re: agency (Joel Rich)
• 3. Re: agency (Arie Folger)
• 4. Admin: Apologies, I lost some emails (Micha Berger)

RJRich asked:
> Rabbi Fuerst posited the following case: A group of siblings agreed to
> purchase a set of 12 cups for their parents as a gift. Sibling A did the
> ordering and when the cups came two of them were cracked. The
> merchant told him to keep the cups and the merchant would send
> another full set. Does the sibling who did the ordering have to share
> the ?free? cups with his siblings. Rabbi Fuerst says no because the
> first sale is a mekach taut and the second sale becomes the only sale.
>
> I'd like a better understanding of how this mechanism works assuming
> that the first sibling is acting as an agent of the other siblings.
> thoughts?

Well, there are two thought processes to analyze. You take it for granted
that the sibling who placed the order is a shaliach, and also take it for
granted that if he is a shaliach, that the broken cups belong to all.

I'd like to question both assumptions.

1) There was no kinyan and no advance payment, so how did the sibling
placing the order become a shaliach? If one sibling fails to pay up, I do
not see how he can be compelled in court to do so, as there was no kinyan
to obligate them to each other.

2) Even if the sibling placing the order would be a shaliach, the broken
cups were not given to him by the brother['s shelichut]; instead, though
the presumed shelichut brought about the perfect storm, those broken cups
were gifted by the seller to the ordering sibling, and the cups were never
the property of the sholchim.

What do you think?
-- 
Mit freundlichen Gr??en,
Yours sincerely,

Arie Folger
Visit my blog at http://rabbifolger.net/

<http://rabbifolger.net/2016/01/28/wir-missionieren-nicht-aber-warum-nicht/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20250626/3241078b/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 7:57PM Arie Folger <arie.fol...@gmail.com> wrote:
> RJRich asked:
>> Rabbi Fuerst posited the following case: A group of siblings agreed to
>> purchase a set of 12 cups for their parents as a gift. Sibling A did the
>> ordering and when the cups came two of them were cracked. The
>> merchant told him to keep the cups and the merchant would send
>> another full set. Does the sibling who did the ordering have to share
>> the "free" cups with his siblings. Rabbi Fuerst says no because the
>> first sale is a mekach taut and the second sale becomes the only sale.

> Well, there are two thought processes to analyze. You take it for granted
> that the sibling who placed the order is a shaliach, and also take it for
> granted that if he is a shaliach, that the broken cups belong to all.

> I'd like to question both assumptions.

> 1) There was no kinyan and no advance payment, so how did the sibling
> placing the order become a shaliach? If one sibling fails to pay up, I do
> not see how he can be compelled in court to do so, as there was no kinyan
> to obligate them to each other.

> 2) Even if the sibling placing the order would be a shaliach, the broken
> cups were not given to him by the brother['s shelichut]; instead, though
> the presumed shelichut brought about the perfect storm, those broken cups
> were gifted by the seller to the ordering sibling, and the cups were never
> the property of the sholchim.

I assumed, but it was not stated, that the ordering sibling paid for the
merchandise on order and the other siblings "owed" their share of the cost
to him.

In your understanding, if the merchant stiffed the ordering sibling, he's
on his own as well?

bsorot tovot
Joel Rich

On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 8:15PM Joel Rich <joelirar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I  assumed, but it was not stated, that the ordering sibling paid for the
> merchandise on order and the other siblings "owed" their share of the cost
> to him.
> In your understanding, if the merchant stiffed the ordering sibling, he's
> on his own as well?

Halakhically, in you new scenario, yes, the ordering sibling would be
on his own.

Of course, none of that should prevent voluntary sharing of benefits and
burdens. The fact you could easily find a scenario where the ordering
sibling is disadvantaged shows that there is goodwill generating benefit
to generally behaving cooperatively even when one seemingly needlessly
benevolently incurs costs.

Kol tuv,
Arie Folger

If you sent posts to Avodah and didn't see them yet, it's due to an
error on my part.

My apologies.

Kindly re-submit them.

Thank you,
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 If you want others to be happy,
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   practice compassion.
Author: Widen Your Tent      If you want to be happy,
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF    practice compassion.


------------------------------



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


------------------------------


**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org


When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."

A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)