[Avodah] Canceling Reservations

[Micha Berger]

R' Meir Orlian wrote the following for The Business Halacha Institute
(run by Dayan R' Chaim Kohn). I saw the article in their weekly sheet, but
I can't find it on http://www.businesshalacha.com/ . This is cut-n-pasted
from The Jewish Press at
http://www.jewishpress.com/judaism/halacha-hashkafa/summer-weekend/2012/07/27/0/

The set-up: Mr Blank rents a weekend at Mr Zimmer's summer home. Mrs
Blank's sister then offers them their summer home for the same weekend.
Now Mr Blank wants to back out.

    Mr. Blank was troubled. He saw Rabbi Dayan in shul that evening and
    asked: "Is it acceptable to cancel the reservation?

    "Just as a sale requires an act of acquisition, a kinyan, to make
    it legally binding, so, too, a rental agreement requires a kinyan to
    make it legally binding," said Rabbi Dayan. "A verbal agreement alone
    does not carry legal responsibility. Therefore, although you reserved
    the bungalow over the phone, since no kinyan or payment was made you
    have the legal ability to cancel the reservation. To prevent this,
    it is wise for landlords to demand a deposit payment." (195:9; 315:1)

    "The words alone mean nothing?!" Mr. Blank asked astounded.

    "Words are meaningful, and a person has a moral obligation to honor
    his verbal commitments," replied Rabbi Dayan. "One who does not
    uphold his words is called lacking trustworthiness (mechusa amana)
    and, possibly, even wicked." (204:7)

    "So then it is wrong to cancel the reservation?" asked Mr. Blank.

    "It would be if you hadn't received the offer from your
    sister-in-law," replied Rabbi Dayan. "There is a dispute between the
    authorities if a verbal commitment is morally binding when there was
    a change in market conditions. The Rama [204:11] cites both opinions,
    and sides that one should not retract even in this case. However,
    later authorities lean towards the lenient opinion [Pischei Choshen,
    Kinyanim, 1:5].

    "When the rental is no longer needed because another unit was received
    for free, the Chasam Sofer [C.M. #102] writes that this is certainly
    like a change in market conditions, so that it is not considered a
    breach of integrity."

    "What if I wasn't offered the other bungalow for free, but found
    a better deal?" asked Mr. Blank. "Would that also be considered a
    change in market conditions?"

    "The SM"A [333:1] indicates so," answered Rabbi Dayan, "but this is
    questionable unless there was some new development in the market,
    so that one who is scrupulous should be careful." (Emek Hamishpat,
    Sechirus Batim, #8)

    "What if Mr. Zimmer had turned away other potential renters
    meanwhile?" asked Mr. Blank. "Perhaps he might not be able to find
    other renters now?"

    "That's a different story," replied Rabbi Dayan. "If he had other
    potential renters and turned them away on your account, this might be
    considered sufficiently direct damage [garmi] to require compensation
    [333:2; SM"A 333:8]. On the other hand, it is not actual damage,
    only lost profit [grama], so that is proper to compromise." (Ketzos
    333:2; Pischei Choshen, Sechirus 10:10)

I understand this as iqar hadin, and the lease wasn't chal lehalakhah.
But what about Mi Shepara? The case of Mi Shepara where the guy tries
to alter the price in Qiddushin 29a or BM 47b-48 also involves breaking
one's word with no money exhcnanging hands.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

Cc: info at businesshalacha.com

-- 
Micha Berger             Worrying is like a rocking chair:
micha at aishdas.org        it gives you something to do for a while,
http://www.aishdas.org   but in the end it gets you nowhere.
Fax: (270) 514-1507