The third-to-last paragraph (beginning with “In our case as well”) — is this an elaboration on the s’vara of the Shach and the Sma introduced in the previous paragraph, or is this paragraph introducing the idea of mutual consideration as a basis for rendering mere words to become an act of kinyan? If it’s the former, can you explain how the passenger’s receiving something of value makes her words into a condition of the deal, and if it’s the latter, can you explain how mutual consideration turns mere words into a kinyan?

When the issue of the passenger’s offering to pay for the ticket was introduced in the article, I assumed that the offer was made after the police gave the driver the ticket (my assumption was incorrect, I might add — “to pay for any ticket” does indeed imply that the offer was made prior to the traffic stop; I was reading quickly and thought the wording was “to pay for the ticket”). In any event, proceeding with my erroneous assumption as if it were the actual facts: If the passenger offered to pay for the ticket after the police issued it, would it be clear that the passenger is not obligated to pay because her words are an instance of “asmachta lo kanya”? After all, it appears that the ride was complete by virtue of their arriving at the mall; thus, it can’t be said that the offer to pay was rendered a condition to the “deal” of being driven to the mall. Nor is there anything of value being exchanged at that point.

Would the halacha be different if the passenger took possession of the ticket when offering to pay for the ticket?

My children were just spared SERIOUS injury 3 weeks ago, right here in Flatbush, having walked out of a massive smack-up with nothing more than bumps and bruises – because they were ALL wearing seat belts.

Hapach nishbar, v’anachnu nimlatnu.

Bottom line: The issue is NOT the ticket – It’s you life!

You can pay a fine and deal with it, but you can’t reverse injury or worse…!!