A buyer went to inspect a new Jaguar that he was considering purchasing. He admired the stereo and the mahogany steering wheel but mentioned nothing about them. He committed to buying the car and it was agreed he would come back with cash. When the buyer returned to pay for his purchase, he saw that the stereo and steering wheel had been switched. The seller claimed that these things were never intended to be part of the sale. The buyer must now prove that they were in fact included in the sale. Otherwise, he will lose the right to claim them.
The Shulchan Aruch notes a question in the Gemara. If someone buys a ship, are the anchor, wheel, rescue ship, and merchandise in the hold included in the sale? The Shulchan Aruch answers that the anchor and wheel are included but the rescue ship and merchandise are not.
How does
halacha
decide what is included? When buying and selling, you presume the seller is giving the minimum. When giving a gift, you presume the giver is giving the maximum. In general, one can assume that whatever is integral to the item is included in the sale. When a seller sells a donkey, the food sack is included as the donkey needs the food. The horse attached to the carriage is included in the sale since the carriage won't go anywhere without it. Taking away the horse is like taking the engine out of the car.
In our case, the stereo is not an integral part of the car, so if nothing was mentioned beforehand, it wouldn't be included in the sale. However, the steering wheel is an essential part and would be included.
When buying a house, whatever is attached with plaster to the structure of the house is included in the sale. There is a doubt about items attached with nails, so the buyer may lose out if nothing was agreed upon beforehand.
Mezuzot
attached with nails have a special
halacha.
If nothing was discussed, the seller must leave them unless he can prove he didn't plan on selling them. The best solution is to have everything written down beforehand.
A widow sold her apartment on the ground floor. She owned a
machsan
(storage room) on a different floor and decided to move in there. Later on, the neighbors reached a mutual agreement to expand their apartments by building over the communal courtyard. The widow said she also wanted to join. The neighbors claimed that she now only owned the storeroom and by selling her apartment she had sold the rights to the communal courtyard. If she wanted to build anyway she would have to pay them. When the widow sold her apartment she didn't specify that she would keep a percentage of the communal property. Does she own the property or not?
The Gemara says that if a person sold his field and kept some trees for himself, it's presumed that the radius of land needed to look after the trees around them is still his. When the widow sold her apartment, she specifically stated she wasn't selling the
machsan
so we presume a part of the communal property still belongs to her, although it would certainly be a lesser share. However she should have had spelled this out clearly in the contract.
In certain cases the price paid can be used as an indicator. If the seller says, "I'm selling this apartment for 110,000 shekels," and it's known that the apartment is worth 100,000 shekels while the
machsan
typically sells for 10,000 shekels, we presume that both are included in the sale. However in
halacha,
language is still the overriding factor, not the price. If the seller specifically said he was only selling the
machsan
, one can't include the apartment, even though the price indicates both were included.
