It also emerged from the testimonies that during the work the contractor was asked to make changes in the building plans (see the testimony of Mr. David on page 77 of the transcript of the hearing of September 10, 2025, line 33 to page 78, line 13, as well as the testimony of Mr. Rachmin there on page 64, lines 28-32 and on page 60, lines 34-35). It also emerged, as stated, that at some point an order was issued to stop certain works, which forced the contractor to proceed with other works (see paragraphs 77-78 above). It is difficult to assess the implications of these matters on the schedule for the completion of the works, and this difficulty is still at the forefront of the defendants, but it is reasonable to assume that at least the changes in the plans had some consequences, and they can explain a certain delay in completion.
- In any event, from the dates noted above, it emerges that the main delay in completing the project did not stem from the delay in completing the works, but rather from the delay in receiving the occupancy approval for nearly two years. There was no dispute between the parties that this delay stemmed from the municipality's demand to carry out environmental development work in the nearby public utility area, in accordance with the outline plan by virtue of which the project was established (see the testimony of Mr. Rachmin on page 62 of the transcript of the hearing of September 10, 2025, line 20, and the testimony of Mr. David on pages 78-79 of this transcript). The dispute is at whose doorstep lies the failure to carry out these works in advance.
- The plaintiffs claim that according to the third agreement, the responsibility for carrying out the environmental development works was the contractor's, and all that remained was to arrange for their consideration. The defendants claim that the contractor was not responsible for the execution of the works according to the agreement, and that this was a "theoretical and hypothetical situation that will not materialize" (the defendants' summaries on page 16 of the transcript of the hearing of September 18, 2025).
- In my opinion, a review of the provisions of the third agreement leads to the conclusion that the responsibility for the fact that the environmental development works were not carried out in advance lies with both the contractor and the members of the group.
In the framework of Same Agreement The contractor undertook to carry out the "works" (clause 3(a) of the second agreement). This term was defined in clause 1 of the agreement, as includes a series of works that will be carried out in accordance with the plans attached to the contract, including "the issuance of a project Form 4 and a certificate of completion". However, in the same definition, it was clarified that