Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mi Yodeya is a question and answer site for those who base their lives on Jewish law and tradition and anyone interested in learning more. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In many places (or at least in the USA), users are charged for incoming calls and text messages.

If someone explicitly tells someone else to stop calling or texting their number, does that person then become responsible for such charges? Or can he/she claim that the phone company is the one charging, and it's not their "headache"?

share|improve this question
    
I know that my provider allows blocking of numbers you do not want calls or messages from. –  Gershon Gold Jun 28 '11 at 13:39
    
It may depend on the cost per message/call, ie. less than or greater than a shava peruta. –  Adam Simon Jul 28 '11 at 23:03
    
@Adam Simon See here. Sprint, for example, charges: $.40 for an overage minute, and $.20 for a text message. Given 2 minutes, or 3 text messages, it would most probably a shava perutah according to all. –  yydl Aug 5 '11 at 17:50
add comment

1 Answer

I don't think they can automatically be liable to pay the whole cost of the text message. The person has texting enabled on his phone, so he agreed to pay the phone company for incoming messages. And he probably read the message and got 'benefit' from it. The person didn't remove the capability to receive a text, so I don't see how just by asking someone he can create an an obligation for payment. I think its between the person and the phone company. (Though it is ridiculous that they charge for text messages.)

share|improve this answer
1  
Suppose I have a deal with the city that I will pay a fine if my yard is too messy. (I do, by having moved in to where I live.) And someone dumps garbage on my yard. And I ask him not to. And he does it anyway, and I get a ticket. That case seems analogous to this one. Do you think I have a claim against him in halacha? –  msh210 Aug 5 '11 at 17:45
    
Correction: The yard case seems analogous to the phone case except that the recipient of text messages knows he will pay for them whereas the yard owner will not certainly get a ticket. The analogue to "The person didn't remove the capability to receive a text" (in your answer) is "The yard owner didn't build a fence with a lock on it". –  msh210 Aug 5 '11 at 17:49
    
Its not comparable cases. People have a right to text you. True, you asked him not to, but I don't think that's enough to create a financial obligation. –  Ariel K Aug 5 '11 at 19:44
    
Btw, for calls you obviously cannot make him pay, since you don't have to pick up the phone. –  Ariel K Aug 5 '11 at 19:45
    
Re "right to text you": I'm unfamiliar with the concept of right in halacha. Source, please? (Note that I'm not saying you're wrong in your answer. I just don't know. I brought my analogue as something to think about.) –  msh210 Aug 5 '11 at 19:53
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.