Adv. Bar: I don't have the invoices at the moment (talking together)
The witness, Mr. Greenbaum: I can also send from the phone.
Adv. Arbiv: No, no. Listen, you didn't attach invoices.
The witness, Mr. Greenbaum: Why? A statement of defense has invoices.
Adv. Bar: Sorry, I have attached an opinion. I don't demand the invoices. The invoices are much more than an opinion. I'm not suing them.
The Honorable Judge Barkai: All right sir. I heard. Attorney Bar, I heard, but I'm asking him now about the investigation.
The witness, Mr. Greenbaum: There are all the invoices to send you"
And later on (Tax Appeal 18, paras. 11-14):
Adv. Arbiv: Do you have an invoice to show me that you have repaired the elevator?
The witness, Mr. Greenbaum: Sure.
Adv. Arbiv: Where is she?
The witness, Mr. Greenbaum: I assume that in one of the documents"
In the margins, I will note that I have given my attention to the fact that the plaintiffs tried to attach to the response to the request to postpone the date of the hearing filed on June 1, 2025, documents that were not mentioned in the affidavit. Of course, there is no reason to treat these documents as part of the evidence in the case.
- Fourth, why should the plaintiffs' demands for compensation for the use of the pool and the restoration of the property be accepted - the plaintiffs attached to the statement of claim an expert opinion for a home inspection dated May 30, 2023 (Appendix 25 to the amended statement of claim). The objectives of the opinion stated that it was done "for the purpose of locating defects in the work and/or discrepancies". In the opinion, the expert notes various defects in the apartment. Thus, for example, he notes that "prominent and unprofessional putty repairs were found throughout the apartment" (paragraph 1 of the opinion); "Waterproofing defects" (paragraph 2 of the opinion); "Carpentry Defects" (paragraph 3 of the opinion); "Flooring defects and marble thresholds" (paragraph 4 of the opinion);aluminum defects" (para. 5 of the opinion); "plumbing defects" (paragraph 6 of the opinion) and more. As stated, this is an apartment that is not new, which was purchased in "AS IS" status, when it has not been proven what the condition of the apartment was at the time of purchase in relation to the condition of the apartment at the time of delivery.
It should be emphasized here that the plaintiff also admitted, for example, with regard to the problems of sealing and dampness - that these were not damages caused to the apartment intentionally. The plaintiff testified as follows (Tax Appeal 26 of par, paras. 26-28):