Reuven knew that Shimon deals in electronics, and, in an effort to piggyback on his success, he searched for deals on items that Shimon sold and found a manufacturer who was willing to supply them to Reuven at a lower price. He contacted the manufacturer and got him to agree to pay a commission for whatever Reuven ordered from him. He then contacted Shimon, and convinced him to order from that manufacturer.
Fueled by this success, Reuven tried to find additional deals that would interest Shimon, and a short while later, he found such a deal. He sent Shimon information about someone selling a product that fit into Shimon’s line and asked whether he wanted to order from that seller. In truth, the deal sounded a bit too good to be true, but he figured that he would pass it along and see what Shimon would decide. In the meantime, he contacted the seller as well, and secured his agreement to pay a commission for whatever Shimon would order.
Q: In the meantime, a third person, Levi, contacted Shimon and asked to buy $30,000 worth of the exact item this new seller was offering. Shimon got very excited about the quick profit he could turn, but not having dealt with this seller before, he contacted Reuven numerous times to ask whether he could vouch for his integrity. Reuven did not answer his phone calls or texts, and Shimon started to leave ever-more-frantic messages. But Reuven didn’t really know the answer, and by the time he got back to Shimon the next day, apologizing that he had been too busy the previous day, Shimon informed him that he had already taken $30,000 from Levi and bought merchandise from the seller.
It turned out that they had fallen prey to a clever scammer with a sophisticated website with no merchandise to sell. After much effort, Shimon managed to get the bank that had processed the payment to return 70% of the money, which he returned to Levi.
Is Shimon liable for the other 30% of Levi’s money? And does Reuven bear any liability in this case?
A: Shimon, who accepted money from Levi as payment for merchandise that he didn’t actually supply, is fully liable for every penny he received from him, regardless of what circumstances led to him being unable to fill Levi’s order.
Even had Shimon been a shaliach (agent) to purchase merchandise on Levi’s behalf, he would still be liable for the loss or theft of Levi’s money, like a typical shomer sachar (paid guardian; Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat 185:7), and he would have been indemnified only from onsim (circumstances beyond his control). In our case, sending Levi’s money to the seller without fully vetting him is considered peshiah (negligence), and Shimon might even be considered a mazik (one who inflicts damages; see Shach ibid. 176:16).
This is certainly true in our case, in which Shimon wasn’t an agent, but offered to sell merchandise to Levi.
Therefore, regardless of whether he was an agent or a seller, even had Shimon not received a penny back from the bank that processed the payment, he would still have had to refund Levi’s money in full.
The only question remaining is whether Reuven bears any liability.
Had Reuven vouched for the manufacturer, it is possible that he would be liable due to the halachah of garmi (direct causation), because Shimon relied on him and made the payment based on his advice (see Pis’chei Teshuvah 104:2 and Business Weekly #444). But because Shimon never reached Reuven on the day he made the payment, and Reuven did not vouch for the scammer, he is not obligated to pay even latzeis yedei Shamayim (to avert Heavenly judgment), because Shimon’s decision to pay the seller on his own means that he bears sole responsibility for that decision (see Choshen Mishpat 129:2 and 306:6).
Had Reuven known in advance that the “seller” was a scammer, he would have transgressed the prohibition of lifnei iveir lo sitein mich’shol (Vayikra 19:14), which forbids giving someone bad advice. But in our case, Reuven is not even guilty of that, because he had no such information.
