Q: I ordered an expensive kitchen from a salesman, and I paid a carpenter a few thousand dollars to install it. After a few months, the exterior of the cabinets started to peel. I called the salesman, and he told me that the manufacturer just informed him that they knew that they had sold a faulty batch of kitchens, and they would send a new one as a replacement. The problem is that I will now have to pay the installer to rip out the old one and install the new one. Am I entitled to demand that the seller compensate me for the money I wasted on the first installation?
A: The Gemara (Bava Basra 93b) records a dispute between Tanna’im regarding a person who sold garden vegetable seeds, and when the buyer planted them, they didn’t grow. The Chachamim (majority of Tanna’im) say that he is required to refund only the price of the seeds, but according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, he must also repay the buyer whatever it cost him to plant the seeds, because he caused that financial loss. The Shulchan Aruch (C. M.232:20) rules according to the Chachamim.
The Rishonim dispute whether this applies to all cases, however. The Ramah (Yad Ramah, Bava Basra 6:62) rules that the Chachamim absolved the seller of paying for the planting costs only if he did not know that they were faulty, but if he knew that he was selling damaged goods, he is required to pay for those costs, because he damaged through garmi (direct causation). Tosafos (ibid. 92a, s.v. Hamocher) maintain that even if the seller knew that the seeds were defective, he is still absolved of paying the planting costs, because it is considered grama (indirect causation).
The Shulchan Aruch (loc. cit. 21) rules according to the Ramah. Therefore, if someone buys an object, and after transporting it to a distant location, he finds it to be defective and has to void the sale, the halachah is that if the seller didn’t know that the item was defective, he is absolved of paying the costs the buyer incurred transporting it. But if he knew it was defective — and the buyer made it clear to him that he was transporting it — he must pay the costs incurred during transportation. (Some Poskim rule that even if the buyer didn’t tell the seller that he was transporting it, but the seller knew anyway, then he is also liable for those costs [Nesivos ibid. 10; cf. Mishpat Shalom 204:1.])
But some Poskim (Imrei Binah, Dayanim 21; Mishpat Shalom and Ulam Hamishpat 232) rule according to Tosafos, and hold that regardless of the circumstances, the seller is not liable for the shipping costs. Nevertheless, if he knew the goods were faulty and that the buyer was planning on transporting them, he would still be obligated to reimburse the buyer for the shipping costs because one who damages through grama must pay latzeis yedei Shamayim (to avoid Heavenly judgment; see Mishpat Hamazik 18:20).
Some Poskim write that if the seller told the buyer specifically that the seeds he was selling were good for planting, then all Rishonim agree that he is required to pay the planting costs, as this is considered garmi, because the buyer planted the seeds only on the seller’s recommendation (Minchas Pittim 209:4, according to Shu”t Rabbi Akiva Eiger 134).
Applying the above to your she’eilah, because the seller did not know that the kitchen was defective, and the company he ordered it from is a reputable firm, there is no absolute obligation for him to compensate you for the amount you paid the installer, unless you stipulated with him that he would cover such costs in such a situation, or the local business practice is for him to cover those costs. (If the seller knew that the merchandise was defective, then the above dispute between the Ramah and Tosafos applies, and he is certainly obligated to compensate you latzeis yedei Shomayim.)
But even if the seller isn’t liable for the installation costs, if he might be able to convince the manufacturer to cover those costs, he should certainly try. Some Poskim write that if someone has financial benefit from a transaction with another person, he must try his best to make sure that that person doesn’t incur a financial loss. (See Rema 294:6 and Pis’chei Teshuvah 3; cf. Shach 9, who rules that this halachah applies only to a shomer [guardian]; but the Shoel Umeishiv, Mahadurah 3, 3:160, writes that if the merchandise was defective to begin with, then the person who derived financial benefit — in his case, an agent, and in our case, the seller — is obligated to try to help his counterpart retrieve his money, especially when the buyer relies on the seller to begin with. Moreover, in your case, because you have no way of reaching out to the manufacturer himself, all Poskim agree that the seller is obligated to try to intercede on your behalf.)
