Monetary Laws | Heavenly Laws and Interpersonal Relations

During the month of Tammuz, we registered our two children for a day camp for a period of ten days (not including Fridays and Shabbos) at a cost of 2,000 shekels.On the 10th of Av, 5785 (the start of the camp), we sent our children and handed over two checks totaling 2,000 shekels (1,000 shekels each). On the 11th, we again sent the children to camp (making it a total of two days).On the 12th of Av, for several reasons related to the camp’s operation, it was not feasible for the children to continue attending. Therefore, after two days, their participation in the camp was discontinued.We requested the return of the checks for 2,000 shekels, deducting the cost of the two days the children attended.Since the owner claimed she was entitled to more, we proposed one of two options: a. A mutually agreed amount of 600 shekels will be paid by us, contingent upon signing a mutual waiver stating that there is complete forgiveness from both sides and no claims, either in civil court or MeDinei Shamayim. If not: b. We would jointly go to a Beis Din to clarify the matter, starting not from the compromise amount but from a discussion of the entire sum.We suggested taking the compromise in the spirit of  האמת והשלום אהבו We also offered her the option of accepting other children to the camp in place of ours, but she refused — thereby rejecting both the compensation and the option to go to Beis Din or arbitration before a qualified Dayan, as well as the option of taking other children.In addition, she suddenly decided to change the terms and raise the price from 100 shekels per day to 150 shekels per day after we informed her we were leaving.We paid her 600 shekels for those two days (at the price of 150 shekels per day), even though the original price was 100 shekels per day, as we wanted to reach an agreement, and we were also willing to add more money to bring the total to 1,000 shekels.She now claims that until we pay her an additional 1,400 shekels, she will hold it against us.Our question: Does she really have the right to do this after we’ve offered her just about every possible option? To us, it feels like she’s forcing our hand—pushing us to do only what she wants, without Daas Torah. 

Shalom uVracha

The response of the Beit Din:

Of course, it is necessary to hear both sides.

At first glance, such a case is considered the start of work, which constitutes an acquisition. Therefore, payment is required until the end of the camp—unless there was a case of ones (force majeure).

Only a qualified Dayan can determine whether this situation qualifies as an ones, after properly hearing the arguments from both sides.