[Avodah] agency

[Joel Rich]

On Thu, Jun 26, 2025 at 7:57PM Arie Folger <arie.folger at 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