Q&A: Liable or Not
Liable or Not
Question
One family went on a trip to Shechem. For that purpose they hired a security guard with a weapon, agreeing to pay him at the end of the tour. At the end of the tour it turned out that the guard did not even have a magazine in his rifle, so if they had been shot at, they would have died. The family argued that since if they had been shot at he would not have been able to do anything, they do not need to pay. The guard argued that the weapon created a certain deterrent effect, and therefore they need to pay him. Who is right, and why?
Answer
I think that were it not for the deterrent effect, you would be exempt from paying. Maybe even with the deterrent effect, because originally you would not have paid for that. I would compromise and pay partially because of the time he invested.
He deceived them and abandoned their safety, and they should pay him?? If they had died, would they also have needed to compromise?