Q&A: Waiving a Monetary Claim
Waiving a Monetary Claim
Question
I bought food for the Sabbath at Rami Levy without looking at the receipt, and I said to myself: Sabbath expenses — it doesn’t matter how much it cost, etc. Later I said, wait a second, he robbed me. I took out the receipt and found that they had charged me much more. Can I go back and make a claim after I had already waived it on Sabbath eve?
And how is this different from any other debt, where you can’t go back after waiving it?
Also, a store that doesn’t keep track presumably waives it if there’s a mistake, so why, if you find a mistake, do you have to return it? After all, they waived it in advance.
Maybe we should say this is a conditional waiver — on condition that he not look at the receipt?
Or maybe one could say it is a mistaken waiver, since they assumed the cashier was careful?
Answer
First, I’m not sure this is really a waiver. It’s more like laziness about checking, combined with a feeling of “that won’t happen to me” (what are the chances I’ll find a mistake?). That is an asmakhta.
Second, even if it was a waiver, it was done only in your heart.
Third, just as you waived it, Rami Levy is willing to refund you when you come with the mistake. So he is giving you a gift despite your having waived it. Just as you are allowed to waive it, he is allowed to give gifts.
And fourth, the law obligates him to return the money in the case of an error (for the public good, even if you waived it). Therefore he owes you the money even if you waived it.
Bottom line, it seems to me there is no problem with coming and asking for a refund.
Discussion on Answer
It’s not clear. From Rami Levy’s perspective there is probably despair, though not necessarily waiver. But the despair comes only after it reached your possession, so it doesn’t help. And maybe there is also waiver (and that probably isn’t an asmakhta, because for them it’s clear there are mistakes. You’re one person, but they’re a big business). But I think the law does obligate you to return it.
Don’t we say here that it came into his possession through prohibition, if they collected a bit of extra money? Because the food came into his possession, and in that there was no mistake.
The question is whether the despair relates to the food or to the money. Without payment, the food came into his possession unlawfully (Rami Levy did not give it on that basis).
I didn’t manage to understand. The food was sold; there is only a monetary debt, like any other sale, and the discussion is about the debt. And with despair regarding a debt we do not say that it came into his possession through prohibition.
It’s hard to elaborate here, but it is not at all simple that we are dealing only with a debt. First, according to Maimonides, the payment for a sale is not considered a debt
0there are several practical implications, such as regarding cancellation of debt in the Sabbatical year). Second, on the side that the money will not be paid, the sale is retroactively voided. Taking possession effects acquisition even without transferring the money only on the assumption that the money will eventually be transferred. But here the money already passed, and the rest is not going to pass at all. There is more to elaborate, but this is not the place.
That is beside the point. True, it is retroactively void if he doesn’t pay, but here he waived the debt, and what the other party acquires is the debt automatically.
That is, the despair relates to the money he was supposed to receive, and despair takes effect on that, so it never reaches a situation of voiding the sale.
Thank you.
If the mistake was the other way around, then according to this I wouldn’t be obligated to return it?