NOTEBOOK

III

,o , ‘■

‘,0 11, % , Itt

,„,11111lt

" so,

1A1‘,N
0 ,k MI

"

1 1

1 1' 1 1 1
1111W
t i 1
ti

I

II I

1"11,'I

lit11111

11111 1111 /11111

11111111111M
‘Ikt11111111
111
‘11111111i1111t1111(

1111111111111111iii
1h
11
11111t

■

MI1,1111111,1

1111 11I i
11 111111 1

1111

‘ ‘‘‘,,‘ A

:‘ I

in

11
11111
1

I„i. I II)/
I I

Ii

cr-

0

2-

Illustration by George Thompson

Holy Uollateral

RABBI DAVID NELSON

Special to The Jewish News

M

y tale begins in
the office of Beth
Shalom, a medium-
sized congregation in Oak
Park, Mich. A mistake occur-
red — the kind that may re-
quire some compassion to
understand — but, never-
theless, a secretary's error.
The same date was given to
two different non-member
families for a wedding one
year and three months in
advance.
One family had selected
Beth Shalom because they
liked the warmth of the sanc-
tuary, the elegance of the
social hall and the sincerity of
the officiating clergy. The se-
cond family had also chosen
Beth Shalom because of its
open-door policy in regard to
kosher caterers. Coming to
Beth Shalom, it would be
tasteful, elegant, kosher, and
cheaper.

The mistake was discovered
a month after it occurred,
leaving everyone a year and
two months to resolve the pro-
blem by rescheduling one of
the weddings. Since neither
family was a member of the
congregation it could not be
argued that we had shown
favoritism. It was an honest
mistake, and we informed
both families, hoping that one
would volunteer to select
another date. That didn't hap-
pen! So, there we were, trap-
ped by our own error. First-
come, first-served seemed the
fairest method, and the most
Solomonic, I should add.
Although we offered several
alternative dates to the se-
cond family, they were unable
to reschedule. They even add-
ed, in most indignant terms,
that we would be sued for fail-
ing to provide the hall on the
agreed upon date. The double
booking, as they told us, was
our problem: their lawyer
would contact us.
I subsequently received a

When an
Oak Park
synagogue
had an
obligation,
the law
almost came
down on the
Law.

• • •

letter which included the
following statements: "Our
investigation reveals that the
synagogue negligently book-
ed two weddings on the same
date and time . . . This error
resulted in numerous
damages. Accordingly, we are
seeking recovery of these
damages from the
synagogue.”
Now, I must confess that I
never imagined that a Jew
would sue a synagogue —
especially in a situation
where no one had been
physically hurt in any way.
We had apologized and tried
to be accommodating as best
we could, even offering free
membership for the couple.
The truth is that we probably
would have thrown in
season's tickets to the Pistons
if we thought that would help,
but nothing seemed to work.
The family's response?
Anger! Cool, slowburning
anger. Their lawyer contacted
us, and they continued to
speak with us through their

lawyer. To quote a letter writ-
ten to the synagogue's at-
torney on July 18, 1988, "as
a result of the breach/
negligence, my clients lost the
benefit of the bargain and
now must pay more for the
wedding and reduce the guest
list to stay within their
budget."
We knew they were serious
when we were served with
legal documents which
sought damages from us
equalling the difference per
plate between the caterer
who could serve in our social
hall as compared with the
caterer where their ceremony
was being held and, by
default, their dinner as well.
The difference was $1,800,
and that is the amount we
were sued for. I thought that
giving a year and 16 days
notice of our mistake would
be sufficient time to select
another date, but I was
wrong. And, I was certain we
would win in court, but I was
wrong.

THE DETROIT JEWISH NEWS

51