Guaranteed Low Prices and Interest: Difference between revisions
From Halachipedia
→Difference between Pesika and a Sale
| Line 73: | Line 73: | ||
# When buying a future of a commodity the seller must provide the buyer with the quantity specified irrelevant of the price change or if his wares of the commodity spoiled. That isn't considered interest since it isn't clear which commodity was sold to the buyer from the beginning.<ref>Tosfot b"m 64b s.v. hay, Rashba 64a s.v. haylech, Taz 173:18, Chelkat Binyamin 173:146. Tosfot 64b asks what is the difference between buying a barrel of wine which is problematic for interest and pesika? Tosfot explains that in pesika the seller takes all responsibility if it goes down or spoils. Since it wan’t specified which fruit he'd provide it doesn’t look like ribbit, while for a barrel of wine it looks like ribbit since the seller specifies which one.</ref> However, when the seller says he is buying specifically the wine that the seller owns then there's a greater concern of interest because if it spoils and yet the seller delivers good wine it seems that the buyer is benefiting because of his advanced payment. Nonetheless, it is permitted until the time when it is normal for wine to spoil if it was spoiled before it was sold.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 173:146</ref> | # When buying a future of a commodity the seller must provide the buyer with the quantity specified irrelevant of the price change or if his wares of the commodity spoiled. That isn't considered interest since it isn't clear which commodity was sold to the buyer from the beginning.<ref>Tosfot b"m 64b s.v. hay, Rashba 64a s.v. haylech, Taz 173:18, Chelkat Binyamin 173:146. Tosfot 64b asks what is the difference between buying a barrel of wine which is problematic for interest and pesika? Tosfot explains that in pesika the seller takes all responsibility if it goes down or spoils. Since it wan’t specified which fruit he'd provide it doesn’t look like ribbit, while for a barrel of wine it looks like ribbit since the seller specifies which one.</ref> However, when the seller says he is buying specifically the wine that the seller owns then there's a greater concern of interest because if it spoils and yet the seller delivers good wine it seems that the buyer is benefiting because of his advanced payment. Nonetheless, it is permitted until the time when it is normal for wine to spoil if it was spoiled before it was sold.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 173:146</ref> | ||
# When the buyer specifies a specific barrel at any time it is problematic and is only permitted if the buyer accepts the fact that if the price increases he will receive less commodity than originally specified.<ref>Gemara Bava Metsia 64a, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 173:13, Chelkat Binyamin 173:146</ref> It is forbidden for the seller to accept the responsibility for the change in price.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 173:13, Shach 173:24, Taz 173:17. Netivot Moshe on Taz 173:17 explains that essentially the Shach and Taz forbid the buyer to accept responsibility for the change in price and say that they're in disagreement with the Drisha who allowed this. However, the Netivot Moshe argues that the Drisha only allowed the buyer to accept responsibility for the change in price if the seller accepts another responsibility such as if it spoils. Chavot Daat 173:18 holds it is forbidden even in such a case.</ref> | # When the buyer specifies a specific barrel at any time it is problematic and is only permitted if the buyer accepts the fact that if the price increases he will receive less commodity than originally specified.<ref>Gemara Bava Metsia 64a, Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 173:13, Chelkat Binyamin 173:146</ref> It is forbidden for the seller to accept the responsibility for the change in price.<ref>Shulchan Aruch Y.D. 173:13, Shach 173:24, Taz 173:17. Netivot Moshe on Taz 173:17 explains that essentially the Shach and Taz forbid the buyer to accept responsibility for the change in price and say that they're in disagreement with the Drisha who allowed this. However, the Netivot Moshe argues that the Drisha only allowed the buyer to accept responsibility for the change in price if the seller accepts another responsibility such as if it spoils. Chavot Daat 173:18 holds it is forbidden even in such a case.</ref> | ||
==Return Policies== | |||
# If a seller has a regular return policy in which the buyer can use the item and return it within a certain amount of time or forever that is considered interest. Since the buyer has paid already and in the event that he returns it the sale is voided then we view the purchase money as a loan. Once the buyer has already used the item once and benefited from it if the seller returns him all his money the buyer is receiving interest upon his loan. This can be solved with one of two ways:<ref>Laws of Interest p. 40</ref> | |||
## The language of the return policy should clearly state that if someone wants to return an item within a certain period of time the seller will buy it back. This language makes it evident that the original sale was complete and never voided even in the event that the buyer wants to return it.<ref>Chavot Daat 174:1. Har Tzvi YD 139 disagrees with the Chavot Daat because it is contradicted by the Ritva 63a. The dispute in essence is whether the language that the original sale be a complete sale and then later it should be sold back completely avoids interest or perhaps language isn't sufficient if the transaction as a whole results in a situation of interest and the Torah understands it to be a case of a loan. Chelkat Binyamin 174:7 cites many poskim on both sides and concludes that one who is lenient like the Chavot Daat has what to rely upon. Laws of Interest p. 40 also concludes that way.</ref> | |||
## The seller specifies that the buyer can't return it before a certain period of time.<ref>Sama 207:11</ref> | |||
## Accoring to most poskim one can rely on the first method. According to others one can rely on the second method. Ideally a person would use both languages to be strict for both sides.<ref>Laws of Interest p. 41</ref> | |||
# Some poskim hold that since generally the fact that the seller lets the buyer use the product is merely in order to interest him in order buying it and there's no time-value of money because of the fact that the seller had the buyer's money in the meantime it is permitted with whatever language they use. However, even according to this opinion if it is a large sale and the time-value of money does play a role and the seller is interested in using the money of the buyer between the time of the sale and the return then it is problematic.<ref>Chelkat Binyamin 174:3. He cites Chut Shani ch. 13 and Kuntres Kitzur Dinei Ribbit Hametzuyim 9:5 to support this approach.</ref> | |||
==Sources== | ==Sources== | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
[[Category:Ribbit]] | [[Category:Ribbit]] | ||
