The boss called Mr. Haber into his office. “We are downsizing our branch here,” he said. “We need to relocate you to another city.”
Mr. Haber was not pleased about the move but needed to keep his job, so he and his wife began making preparations. They inquired about yeshivos, housing options and moving companies. As the moving date approached, they began sorting their household items, those to take and those to sell.
Three weeks before moving, they posted a notice in their community bulletin: “Moving sale! Many household items at reduced price. Sunday afternoon this week and next.” They also prepared a placard at the front of the house.
Among the items sold were Mr. Haber’s bicycle, their refrigerator — with an agreement to leave it until they moved — and some heavy professional tools.
A week before the move, Mr. Haber’s boss called him in. “We have some good news for you,” he said.
“What is that?” asked Mr. Haber.
“Three employees transferred to other companies, so we would like you to stay here,” said the boss. “There is no need to relocate you.”
“Wow!” exclaimed Mr. Haber. “You really caught me by surprise! We’ve been making plans for two months, but we’re very happy to stay!”
Mr. Haber immediately shared the good news with his wife. “What about all the items we sold?” she asked. “It’s going to cost us double to replace them. Can we get them back?”
“I don’t know,” he replied. “They’re sold!”
“But we sold them because of the anticipated move,” she said. “If we’re not moving, the sale should be null and void.”
“We didn’t stipulate that the sale was contingent on the move,” said Mr. Haber. “We don’t have legal basis to revoke the sale.”
“Why don’t you consult Rabbi Dayan?” suggested his wife. “See what he says.”
Mr. Haber called Rabbi Dayan. “We sold various household items, including my bicycle, the refrigerator and some professional tools, with the expectation of being relocated,” he said. “It turns out we’re staying. Can I annul those sales?”
“The Gemara (Kiddushin 49b) discusses the case of a person who sold his property with intention to emigrate to Eretz Yisrael, but did not mention this at the time of the sale,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “Although his plans fell through, Rava rules that he could not invalidate the sale, because non-verbalized intentions are not of legal consequence (devarim sheb’lev einam devarim).”
“But we clearly mentioned that the sale was a moving sale,” noted Mr. Haber. “Does that make a difference?”
“Tosafos (s.v. devarim) infer that if the person mentioned his intention to emigrate at the time of the sale he could undo it,” explained Rabbi Dayan. “They distinguish between three cases: 1) Where circumstances indicate that the sale was predicated on something, as in the Gemara’s example, we suffice with verbal indication (giluy daas) at the time of the sale. 2) Where there isn’t sufficient circumstantial support we require an explicit stipulation. 3) Where the intention is absolutely clear to all, it is not even necessary to indicate verbally” (C.M. 207:3-4).
“In our case there is circumstantial support,” said Mr. Haber, “so should we be able to undo the sale on account of the giluy daas?”
“It would seem so,” said Rabbi Dayan. “However, the Rema (207:4) limits Tosafos’s ruling about giluy daas to real estate — which people do not sell without good reason. Movable items — which people often sell without great need — require explicit stipulation. Thus, although you mentioned your intention to move, there isn’t sufficient circumstantial support to determine that the move was a conditional factor for the sale of the bike.”
“What about the professional tools and fridge?” asked Mr. Haber.
“Those sales you can undo,” replied Rabbi Dayan. “Since people sell their professional tools only for good reason, if the plans fell through, that sale is also invalidated when there was a giluy daas. Moreover, since the Rema’s qualification is questionable, the seller can keep items still in his possession, such as the refrigerator” (See Pischei Choshen, Kinyanim 20:[56]; Pischei Teshuvah 207:5).