I signed a five-year lease for office space. It is now the beginning of the fourth year of that contract, and real estate value has dropped. I can find equivalent space for $1,000 less per month. I asked the landlord to lower my rent, but he refused, insisting that I honor the contract. I feel that the change of circumstances should permit me to force him to renegotiate the contract. A friend advised me to tell the landlord that if he won’t lower my rent, I will leave; if he wants to collect the rent money for the remainder of the lease, he’ll have to take me to a Din Torah. For the amount under dispute, it is unlikely that he will invest the resources to take me to a Din Torah. This leaves him with two choices: to let me leave or agree to lower my rent.

Q: I know that this tactic is common practice, but is it permitted?

A: Changes in market value do not permit you to break a lease. As such, since Bais Din would dismiss your case out of hand, even a threat to summon him is incorrect. In fact, Terumas HaDeshen (#306) writes that it is absolutely prohibited to use tactics to force someone to agree to a compromise and thereby forgo money that he deserves. Such an approach contains elements of falsehood and thus violates m’dvar sheker tirchak – the obligation to distance oneself from falsehood. Also, since the compromise offer is only accepted to spare the effort to pursue the matter in Bais Din, it violates the prohibition of oshek – withholding someone’s wages or otherwise due monies. Thus, Shulchan Aruch (Choshen Mishpat 12:6) rules that it is prohibited for one to look for ways to stall, thereby forcing the claimant to forgo a percentage of his claim.

Moreover, Rema (ibid) writes that if one improperly forced another party to agree to a compromise, he does not discharge his Heavenly responsibility (yotzei y’dey shamayim) for this transgression until he pays the other party the money he owes him. It is obvious from the source of this ruling (Rashba 2:278 cited by Bais Yosef) that only in a case where Bais Din couldn’t determine whether the defendant acted in good faith will Bais Din not force him to pay. If, however, it is clear that the claimant agreed to the compromise under duress, the concession is not binding and Bais Din would be empowered to force the defendant to pay the full debt.

In your case, you are trying to force your landlord to renegotiate a contract. Although your intention is not to withhold monies you already owe, it is still prohibited to force a compromise on a lease that entitles your landlord to future income.

As such, it is clear that you may not follow your friend’s advice. You must settle the matter by mutual consent - without threats that force him to accept a compromise against his will.

Q: Who is included in the halachic requirement for timely payment of wages?

A: As mentioned in the beginning of this series, there is a mitzvah to pay wages in a timely manner and two prohibitions against delaying payment. The requirement to pay promptly and the prohibitions to delay apply to both regular employees and someone hired on a one-time basis. It does not make a difference whether the worker is paid by the hour or paid a flat fee for the job (C. M. 339:6). Furthermore, the requirement applies even to services rendered by a minor (e.g., babysitting, lawn mowing), and even if the wages amount to a small sum. It also applies regardless of whether the worker is poor or wealthy (Ahavas Chesed 9:3,5,8).

This requirement to pay promptly applies not only to wages, but also to rental fees. There is an opinion that the prohibition does not apply to property rental, but many authorities maintain that it applies also to real estate (C.M. 339:1; Ahavas Chesed 9:5). Therefore, a renter has to be especially careful to pay his rent bill promptly. The same is true for someone who leases an auto or other equipment.