Bride and Groom Want to Cancel Event Due to Security Situation, Who Bears the Loss?

 Description of the Facts:

A couple planning to get married had booked a hall for a specific date. After finalizing all arrangements, they sent a 10% deposit. However, one week before the scheduled date, Operation "Protective Edge" broke out, raising significant concerns that guests would not attend the event due to fears of missile fire occurring each evening. Since guests would likely not attend, the couple requested to cancel the reservation and asked the hall owner to return their deposit, claiming they were forced into this situation.

In contrast, the hall owner argues that this deposit has already been paid and also claims compensation for the profitable portion that wasn't paid to him.

This case could be compared to what is mentioned in the Rema (Choshen Mishpat 334), which states: "If someone rented a house to live in and died during the rental period, the heirs only need to pay for the time the deceased lived there." The reasoning is that the landlord is considered like a worker, as is the hall owner, and for a worker, the loss falls on him for not stipulating such conditions. However, some early authorities like the Rambam, Rashba, and others cited in section 312 consider rental equivalent to a sale for a specific time, meaning the couple effectively purchased the hall for that day. If so, their inability to use it is due to their misfortune, and they should bear the loss, as written by the Maggid Mishneh.

The Rashba wanted to compare this case to a person who rented an apartment for a year and unfortunately passed away during that year, with the heirs unwilling to pay except for the time he lived in the apartment. The Rashba wrote that the law favors the landlord, requiring the heirs to pay for the entire year since rental is like a sale for a set time. However, the Shach in section 334:2 cited the "Bayit Chadash" who disagrees and references Tosafot in Bava Metzia 56b, which argues that rental is considered like a sale only regarding matters of overcharging, not in all respects. Even if we consider it a sale, there are situations of force majeure in sales, such as hidden defects in the sold item, which can void the transaction.

It emerges that according to Tosafot, Bayit Chadash, and other early authorities, the heirs only need to pay for the time their father lived there and no more, while according to the Rashba, Rambam, and others, they must pay because rental is considered a sale.

 Thus, there is a disagreement among the authorities on this matter, and furthermore, in this case, a certain amount was already paid despite not having used the hall yet.

After examining contemporary authorities, the book "Yabia Omer" Part 9, Choshen Mishpat 11, by our teacher Rabbi Ovadia Yosef of blessed memory, ruled according to the Rambam and Rashba that rental is a sale for a specific time, and the same applies in our case, requiring payment. However, since some authorities like the Shach hold that it is not considered a sale, the couple could claim they follow the opinion of Tosafot and Bayit Chadash that it is not a sale, and the loss falls on the hall owner. Therefore, in this situation, what has already been paid cannot be recovered from the hall owner, and what has not been paid cannot be claimed by the hall owner.

In all this, one must consider that the hall owner's loss is only in profit, and he hasn't incurred any expenses for this date. This factor should be taken into account, and it's also worth examining whether this situation is considered a regional disaster ("makat medina"), as mentioned in section 321, in which case the couple would be completely exempt from payment.

Written by Rabbi Aharon Ganach, Chairman of the "Mediation and Arbitration" Center 054-8414117