"The Honorable Judge Barkai: But the dampness and water damage isn't because of the rampage you said you were at home.
The witness, Mr. Greenbaum: Probably not, apparently it has nothing to do with it. Again, I'm not a certified sealant, but the house had a lot of new dampness that wasn't there when we saw it."
- There is room to accept the plaintiffs' demand for compensation for payment to an evacuation contractor in the sum of ILS 44,460, subject to the fact that this is not a double compensation [sixth relief that appears above in paragraph 2(f) of the judgment]
- The plaintiffs were eventually forced to finance the evacuation of the property from their own pockets in preparation for its handover. There is no doubt that if the defendants had acted in accordance with the agreement, they would have borne the costs of the evacuation. Therefore, the defendants should be charged for the costs of the eviction that the plaintiffs bore.
- The plaintiffs presented references (invoices - Appendix 24 to the amended statement of claim) for various expenses in respect of the eviction. One of the invoices stated the sum of ILS 44,460 - which is the amount claimed and for which the defendants must be charged. There is no reason to charge for an additional invoice in the sum of ILS 25,740 - which was not included in the statement of claim.
- Alongside the aforesaid, and as has already been clarified - later in the judgment it will be necessary to make a calculation of the total compensation for the plaintiffs' damages [see section 9.7(b) below]. If the total amount of the plaintiffs' compensation is less than the agreed amount of compensation (ILS 1,000,000), no additional compensation will be determined.
- The plaintiffs' demand for compensation for the use of the Stardome system at a cost of ILS 51,480 should be rejected [the eighth remedy that appears above in paragraph 2(h) of the judgment]
- The plaintiffs noted that the apartment was sold with a smart system installed. According to them, between the date of signing the agreement and the date of delivery of the apartment, the defendants completely destroyed the system and the cost of repairing it is ILS 51,480. With regard to this system, the plaintiff was asked and answered as follows (Tax Appeal 31 par., paras. 4-15, emphases not in the original):
"Adv. Arbiv: Wait. There is a detail in the appendix, a list of the components you received in addition to the house. I didn't see a smart system here. Not in the details of the components, nor did I see it in the sale agreement. Who sold you a smart system?