The works do not include the work of the Public Works Department, and these works will be carried out in exchange for the payment of a guarantee by the [group] deposited with the Jerusalem Municipality, to the recipient. [The group] is aware that the costs of building the security services exceed the amount of the guarantee, and that the [group] [t]he was obligated to pay the difference for which he was to receive...
Clause 3(k) of the agreement also clarifies that the consideration agreed upon is for all the works,
With the exception of the works of the open public areas (hereinafter: the Public Works Department), which shall be carried out by the Contractor for a separate consideration and additional payment, upon completion of the works of the Public Works and/or in the status of Form 4, whichever is earlier (emphasis in original).
Contrary to the defendants' claims, the agreement explicitly stipulates that the contractor will carry out the environmental development work. This agreement is also reasonable in view of the contractor's obligation to complete the project by receiving a occupancy approval form (and even a certificate of completion), for which the environmental development work may be a condition, as has actually happened. On the other hand, the agreement did not specify the consideration for the execution of the works, nor did it state that it included plans for their execution (and see in this regard the testimony of Mr. Rachmin on page 62 of the transcript of the hearing of September 10, 2025, lines 3-4 and Mr. David's testimony on pages 78-79).
- In view of the provisions of the agreement, it was expected that the contractor would act in advance vis-à-vis the members of the group, To settle the series load, In order to be able to meet its obligations to carry out the environmental development work, and bring to the receipt of a certificate of occupancy and a certificate of completion on time. In practice, it seems, the contractor did not see this matter as part of its obligations, and did not foresee to the members of the group the need to advance it in the event that the municipality insists on carrying out the development work as a condition for granting a permit to occupy (and see Mr. David's testimony on page 90 of the transcript of the hearing of September 10, 2025)., Regarding the surprise of the group committee when they discovered that in order to obtain a permit for occupancy, it is not enough to forfeit the guarantee that was deposited for the purpose of carrying out the development works, but it is required to carry them out in practice).
On the other hand, the members of the group were supposed to be aware of the obligation to carry out the environmental development work by virtue of the plan, and also of the fact that in the framework of the third agreement, this matter was not exhaustively regulated. In these circumstances, It was expected that they would act on their part in order to regulate what needs to be regularized in order to promote works Development, including reaching an additional agreement with the contractor regarding consideration for them, arranging the financing, and drawing up plans for the execution of the works. This is in the event that the authority does insist on execution Development Work In practice.
- Had it not been for the waiver of claims, there would have been room to decide the question of the division of liability between the parties in relation to the delay and its consequences. However, in view of my conclusion regarding the waiver, there is no need for such a decision. Moreover: The conclusion that the responsibility does not lie with one party alone, can explain the background to what is stated in the waiver signed by the parties, in which they both stated that "the [sic] and the sea stemmed from both parties controlled by the [Kable] and from reasons controlled by the group."[19]
- The conclusion is therefore that there is no reason to deduct from the sums of the plaintiffs' debts to the defendants any counter-debts due to a delay in the completion of the venture, and we should not refrain from adding interest for the period of the delay.
(4) Interest for the period from 2019 to present
- As already noted, the occupancy certificate was issued on May 19, 2019. Shortly thereafter, the defendants presented the group committee with the calculation of the debt as of May 31, 2019, according to their method (see paragraph 12 of the affidavit of Boaz Barzili on behalf of the lenders). After examinations that lasted about a year (see also paragraph 26 of the affidavit of plaintiff 1), on June 24, 2020, the aforementioned card was issued, which included the amount of each member's debt for the purpose of removing the lien on his share.
- The plaintiffs argued, as stated, that they should not be charged interest for the period after the end of the venture, since they tried to obtain details from the defendants regarding the balance of their debts so that they could repay them, but they acted arbitrarily towards them, giving them absurd sums that they had to pay in order to remove the lien. Thus, it was claimed, the defendants thwarted the possibility of selling the apartments and repaying the debts, with the aim of maximizing the amounts of the debt through the passage of time. Additional concrete arguments were also raised (see the plaintiffs' summaries on page 10 of the transcript of the hearing of September 18, 2025).
- The defendants, for their part, claimed that until June 24, 2020, it was not possible to give details of the balance of debts to each class member, since the board did not sign a card detailing the debt of each member. With regard to the subsequent period, it was claimed that plaintiffs 6 and 7 did not file affidavits at all and did not present documentation regarding the request to receive details of the balance of the debt; that plaintiff No. 2's claim regarding the request for details of a debt balance was not backed up by appropriate documentation; and that plaintiffs 1 and 4-3 refrained from repaying the balance of their debt according to the letters they received without justification (see the defendants' summaries on page 34 of the transcript of the hearing of September 18, 2025, line 26 to page 35, line 11).
- Indeed, as the defendants claim, only on June 24, 2020, did the board sign the card, which is binding for the purpose of removing the lien by virtue of clause 6.6 of the second agreement. Therefore, until that date, the liability regime applied jointly and severally to the issue of the removal of the lien, so that the defendants were not required to provide an individual balance of debt to each class member, nor could they have done so (see my conclusions in paragraphs 47-48 above).
- However, from that date onwards, the defendants had to act in the matter of removing the lien in accordance with the provisions of the agreements.
With regard to the removal of the lien in respect of the debt by virtue of the second agreement, the ticketing is binding by virtue of clause 6.6 of the agreement. Therefore, the defendants should have removed the lien on the payment of the individual debt by virtue of the second agreement, while maintaining the mutual claims regarding the liability of each group member to the total balance of the debt on the substantive level.