Print this Article
By Dayan Baruch M. Levine, Dayan at Bet HaVa’ad, Lakewood and noted author
There is no more fundamental summer institution than summer camp – where a child creates valuable memories, experiences and friends that last a lifetime. Finding a suitable camp for your child can be quite an undertaking, and often times, whether for unforeseeable reasons or a sudden change of heart, a parent may feel compelled to opt out of a camp.
This will obviously leave the camp unhappy, as they must now scramble to find a way to supplement the lost income. In this article we will discuss what Halachic recourse do parents or camps have in the various possible scenarios.
A Replaceable Slot
When parents wish to opt out of a camp they enrolled their child in, the first thing we must determine is whether the slot can be replaced. The responsibility to find a replacement falls on the camp, and if the camp is able to replace the slot with another child with reasonable effort, the parents would not have any responsibility to pay the camp if they back out, even if a Kinyan (transactional act) was made [1]. If the (full) camp tuition was prepaid it would have to be refunded.
Even if the parents signed an application form which stated they would be responsible for the full tuition in the event they cancel their slot, this would generally not include such an instance where the camp has the ability to replace the slot, unless the application clearly stated so. [Even so, although the camp would have the option of charging the tuition and not replacing the slot, they would not be allowed to keep the tuition and replace the slot [2].] If the camp requested a “deposit”, there is strong basis to allow the camp to keep this payment, since it is generally understood that a “deposit” is non-refundable.
Grievances (Tar’omet) and Lacking Faithfulness (Mehusar Amana)
Even though in this case the parents have the option of backing out, nevertheless, Hazal would entitle the camp to have a Tar’omet – justified grievances – against the parents for causing them the hardship of replacing their slot. However, if the camp is able to find a replacement without difficulty, and the child did not start attending the camp yet, they would not have a right to have Tar’omet [3]. Still, the parents would be frowned upon by Hazal and termed “Mehusar Amana” – lacking faithfulness – for reneging on their word [4] [unless they are backing out due to an unforeseen circumstance, as we shall discuss later].
An Irreplaceable Slot
If after reasonable effort the camp cannot find a replacement, the parents may bear some financial responsibility depending on the following factors:
A Verbal Commitment
If the parents only made a verbal commitment to enroll their child, and did not sign any formal application or give any deposit, they are not technically bound to the agreement. Nevertheless, they may still be liable for causing the camp a financial loss. Accordingly, if the camp could have filled that slot with another child, the parents would generally still be responsible to pay the tuition for the entire duration they had agreed to enroll their child for (except foe unavoidable termination, which will be discussed below). However, if at the time of the cancellation there is little or no reason to assume that the camp will be unable to replace the slot, then even if the camp is indeed unsuccessful in doing so, the parents will not be responsible for the tuition [5].
When paying for lost tuition, the parents do not pay the full amount; rather they first deduct the amount that a camp would agree to forfeit in order to have one less child in their camp. Depending on the age of the child and the size of the camp, this deduction may only be a minimal amount or possibly nothing at all [6].
If the camp would not have been able to fill this slot either way, for example, if they still have slots available, then the parents have not prevented them from enrolling other children by their enrollment and subsequent cancelation. They would therefore have the ability to back out without any financial obligation to the camp. The Halachot of Mehusar Amana as previously outlined would still apply.
Even in a case where the camp would not have been able to fill the slot, and thus the parents are not responsible for the tuition, nevertheless, if the camp had made specific (non-refundable) expenditures in anticipation of the child’s attendance, and the parents were aware that the camp would be doing so, the parents may be responsible for this loss. Examples of this could be the purchase of supplies, trip reservations or hiring extra staff [7].
A Binding Kinyan
If a Kinyan was done to finalize the camp enrollment, the parents are Halachically bound to the contract. Examples of a Kinyan can include signing an application [8] or paying full tuition. It is unclear whether paying a deposit would constitute a Kinyan to obligate them to pay the rest of the tuition out-of-pocket [9]. In any event, a deposit or even a full tuition payment specifically earmarked for the first half of the summer (July) would generally not obligate the parent to pay out of pocket for the second half of the summer (August). If the child started attending the camp it would also constitute a Kinyan. However, attending the camp for the first half of the summer (July) would generally not obligate the parents to pay out of pocket for the second half of the summer (August). [Here too, they would not pay the full amount as detailed above.]
Oness – Unavoidable Termination
If it becomes unfeasible for the child to attend the camp this would be a case of Oness and the parents may back out without any consequences, even if the camp was prevented from filling that slot because the parents originally signed up. Mehusar Amana and Tar’omet would also not apply. However, according to some Aharonim, the camp would not be required to refund the parents any prepaid tuition or deposit they had already paid.
Often, a Dayan or a Bet Din would need to determine if it is indeed an Oness [10]. Some examples of an Oness may include the parents moving out of town for the summer, the child becoming sick ר”ל, or if the child simply refuses to go to the camp.
If the parents had knowledge of (or had reason to anticipate) the Oness at the time they signed up, yet did not inform the camp of this, they would still be liable, unless the camp had equal knowledge of the likelihood of the Oness [for example, if the child has a social issue which both the parents and the camp knew about].
Sources
[1] חו”מ (של”ג) ס”ב, וע”ע ברמ”א (של”ה ס”א).
[2] דלקבל שכירות מהילד שעזב וגם מהילד החדש לכאו’ חשיב גוזמא, אם לא שכתוב באופן דאין בו משום אסמכתא (ב”ד חשוב).
[3] ע’ בש”ך (שם סק”א) שכתב דמהרא”ש מבואר דהתרעומות הוא משום הטירחא כו’. והק’ הש”ך מהא דאי’ דסי’ שי”א (ס”ו) גבי השוכר ספינה ופרקה בחצי הדרך כו’, ותי’ דשאני התם כיון שפרקה בחצי הדרך וכבר הורגל עמו משא”כ הכא שחוזר מיד. ומזה לכאו’ יוצא דהיכא שההורים חוזרים באמצע השנה אף אם יכול המחנה למצוא ילד אחר בלא טירחא אפ”ה יה’ תרעומות כיון דכבר הורגלה באותו ילד. וע’ בערה”ש (של”ג סק”א).
[4] סמ”ע (שם סק”א) ע”פ המבואר בשו”ע סי’ ר”ד (ס”ז). וע’ בפתח”ח (פ”ה ס”ב), וחלק עליו בשו”ת שבט הלוי (ח”ז סי’ רל”ו אות ו’), ע”ש. ועכ”פ אם ההורים בעצמם מוצאים ילד אחר שיירשם למחנה אפשר דלכו”ע אין בו משום מחוס”א. וכן לאידך גיסא אם ההורים חוזרים בתוך שנת הלמודים ויש טירחא למחנה להתחיל עם ילד חדש, לכאו’ לכו”ע יה’ בו משום מחוס”א, והכל לפי הענין.
[5] דהוי גרמי בשוגג ופטור, וע”ע בדרו”ח (ב”מ ע”ו ע”ב).
[6] שו”ע שם (ס”ב) דנותן להם שכרם כפועל בטל. וע’ בפוסקים מה הוא שיעור הנכוי, ואכמ”ל.
[7] כהא דסי’ של”ג (ס”ח) האומר לאומן עשה לי דבר פלוני ואקחנו ממך כו’ דחייב משום גרמי. וכ”פ בדברי מלכיאל (ח”ה סי’ רכ”ט) בנדון כעי”ז. ולכאו’ כל זה רק כשההורים ידעו שהמחנה יקנה הדברים על פי דיבורם (עי’ ש”ך סי’ קכ”ט סק”ז, וע”ע בשבט הלוי ח”ז סי’ רל”ו). ובכל אופן לכאו’ עכ”פ גרמא וחייב לצי”ש. ובנוגע להפסד עבודת המדריך, ע’ בס’ דבר למשפט להגר”ש ראזנבערג שליט”א (סי’ ה’) שהאריך לברר דאי”ז בכלל דבר האבוד. ואפשר דעכ”פ חשיב גרמא.
[8] מדין סיתומתא
[9] עיין בפ”ת (ר”ז סקי”ג) שכתב בשם שו”ת מים חיים דנתינת דמי אדרוף(deposit) לא נחשב כקנין כסף דדעתם רק שיהי’ ערבון ולא לעשות קנין גמור, אולם בשו”ת בית שלמה (יו”ד ח”ב סוס”י קפ”ז), כתב דודאי נחשב קנין (וע”ע במנחת פתים סי’ ק”צ מש”כ בענין זה). וכ”ז לגבי מכר, ולגבי שכירות פועלים בכלל וגן ילדים בפרט יש סברות לכאן ולכאן, וקשה להוציא ממון מההורים בכה”ג.
[10] עיין בתרוה”ד (הובא ברמ”א) דאפילו באונס “קצת” מיפטר, ואכמ”ל.