[Avodah] agency

[Arie Folger]

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 Grüßen,
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.htm>