The witness, Mr. Greenbaum: The Shermans sold me that it comes with smart electricity, it's electricity that you can hardly run without. You have to go up, disconnect and so on. I don't remember the oral sale agreement, I assume it says in the sale agreement that there is an electrical system. In any case, yes, there was a component missing there. Moshe claimed that there was no missing component, he sent his electrician specifically to come and check it out. His electrician himself said that someone was missing a component that someone had dismantled, Shira claimed it was Moshe, Moshe claimed it was Shira. I suggested to Moshe to find a solution to this. He said, 'I don't have a solution,' it's all in the correspondence, andIn the end I had to pay a system and I have an invoice for that amount. Actually, it's Moshe's man, it's not my man at all."
- In order to prove this claim, the plaintiffs attached a price quote in the amount of ILS 51,480 (Appendix 26 to the amended statement of claim). It is not enough to attach a price quote, and there was room to attach a reference for payment. No receipt was attached, and not even an invoice was attached, which, according to the plaintiff, was in his possession. In addition, no explanation was given as to why a receipt for payment was not attached. In these circumstances, the demand should not be accepted.
- Alongside the aforesaid, it should be emphasized that even if there was room to accept the plaintiffs' demand for payment of the sum of ILS 51,480 for the use of the system, it would still have been necessary to make a calculation as to whether the total compensation for the damages does not coincide with the agreed amount of compensation. Simply put, even if it had been determined below that the plaintiffs were entitled to compensation for this demand - it is still possible that the compensation would have been actually "swallowed" in the amount of the agreed compensation, and see the legal reference in section 8.6 above, as well as the calculation in section 9.7(b) below.
- Finally, regarding the hearing of seven additional components of the claim, beyond the agreed compensation in the sum of ILS 1,000,000
- To summarize the discussion regarding seven additional components of the claim, the following can be said:
- Loss of Yield - As to compensation for loss of return in the sum of ILS 499,200 [section 2(a) above] - the claim in respect of this component should be dismissed. The reasons for this have just been presented in the discussion within the framework of section 9.1 above.
- Loss of rent - With regard to compensation for loss of rent in the sum of ILS 244,500 [section 2(c) above] - there is room to accept the demand, but subject to the fact that it is not a double compensation, as opposed to the obligation to pay the agreed compensation. The reasons for this have just been given in the discussion within the framework of section 9.2 above.
- Legal Expenses - With regard to compensation for legal expenses in the sum of ILS 153,945 [section 2(d) above] - the claim for this component must be dismissed. The reasons for this have just been presented in the discussion in the framework of section 9.3 above.
- Repair expenses as well as the expenses of restoring the property to its former state - With regard to the demand for the expenses of repairing the pool systems, in the sum of ILS 250,000, as well as the expenses of restoring the property to its former state, in the sum of ILS 354,568 [sections 2(e) and 2(g) above] - the claim in respect of this component should be dismissed. The reasons for this have just been presented in the discussion in the framework of section 9.4 above.
- Evacuation Expenses - With regard to a demand for payment for evacuation expenses in the sum of ILS 44,460 [section 2(d) above] - there is room to accept the demand, but subject to the fact that it is not a matter of double compensation, as opposed to the obligation to pay the agreed compensation. Reasons for this were given in the discussion in the framework of section 9.5 above.
- Expenses for the use of the Stardome smart home system - With regard to the expenses of using the smart home system, in the sum of ILS 51,480 [section 2(h) above] - the claim for this component should be dismissed. The reasons for this have just been presented in the discussion within the framework of section 9.6 above.
- From all of the above, it appears that the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for the loss of rent, in the sum of ILS 244,500, and for the eviction expenses, in the sum of ILS 44,460. However, this sum was "swallowed up" in the amount of the agreed compensation that was set at ILS 1,000,000 - and hence, in accordance with the legal discussion in section 8.6 above, there is no reason to charge the defendants for it.
In the margins, it should be said that even if it had been determined that the plaintiffs were entitled to sums for the use of the pool (ILS 250,000), for the restoration of the property to its former state (ILS 354,568) and for the use of the smart home system (ILS 51,480), there was still no room to charge double compensation. In such a situation, the total sums would have been ILS 945,008 (= 244,500 + 44,460 + 250,000 + 354,568 + 51,480). This amount is less than the agreed amount of ILS 1,000,000 and was absorbed into it.
- In summary, the plaintiffs are not entitled to speak in respect of the seven additional components discussed in section 9 now.
Transitional note - so far the judgment has discussed that the defendants should be obligated to pay the agreed compensation, which is one of the ten remedies that were sought, and seven additional remedies out of the ten remedies that were claimed were also discussed. In the following paragraphs, reference will be made to two additional monetary remedies, as detailed in sections 2(i) and 2(j) above.
- Discussion of the last two components of the ten remedies to which the plaintiffs petitioned, as detailed in paragraphs 2(i) and 2(j) above
In the following paragraphs, a discussion of two additional charging components that appeared in the amended statement of claim will be discussed. These components do not relate to damages caused to the plaintiffs, but rather they relate to payments that the plaintiffs paid on behalf of the defendants and are now petitioning for their restitution. In other words, these components are not "absorbed" in the payment of the agreed compensation. In the discussion of these components, which deal with the restitution of an amount paid by the plaintiffs, it is irrelevant that the defendants are also obligated to pay agreed compensation at the same time.
- The plaintiffs' demand for the return of payment in the sum of ILS 13,599 that they paid in lieu of the defendants in respect of debts to the Municipality must be accepted [ninth remedy appearing in section 2(i) above]
- The plaintiffs point out that they were forced to pay the defendants' debts to the local authority, in the sum of ILS 13,599.
- In this regard, it was determined in the sale agreement that the liability to pay the local authority, up to the date of delivery, applies to the seller - i.e., to the defendants. In the words of clause 9(c) of the sale agreement - "municipal and government taxes, levies, fees and any other tax that will apply to the apartment, and/or to the apartment owner and/or to the apartment holder..... This is until the day the possession of the apartment is handed over to the buyer - it will be paid by the seller."
- When the plaintiffs have borne the payment of the debt to the local authority, the defendants must return this sum to them. Hence, the defendants should be obligated to pay the sum of ILS 13,599. This amount will bear linkage and interest differentials as required by law from the date of filing the amended statement of claim until the date of actual payment.
- The plaintiffs' demand for a refund of the payment in the sum of ILS 4,265 that they paid in lieu of the defendants in respect of a betterment tax debt should be accepted [the tenth remedy that appears above in section 2(j) above]
- The plaintiffs point out that they were forced to pay the defendants' debt for betterment tax, in the sum of ILS 4,265.
- In this regard, it was determined in the sale agreement that the liability to pay betterment tax applies to the seller - i.e., to the defendants. In the words of clause 9(b) of the sale agreement - "Betterment tax, if it applies in respect of the transaction that is the subject of this agreement, will be paid by the seller."
- When the plaintiffs bore the payment of the debt for betterment tax, the defendants must return this amount to them. Hence, the defendants should be obligated to pay the sum of ILS 4,265. This amount will bear linkage and interest differentials as required by law from the date of filing the amended statement of claim until the date of actual payment.
Passage Note - So far, the judgment has discussed that the defendants should be obligated to pay the agreed compensation, in the sum of ILS 1,000,000 (principal), as well as the restitution of sums paid by the plaintiffs instead of the defendants - a sum (principal) of ILS 13,599 and a sum (principal) of ILS 4,265. In the following paragraphs, I will discuss the defendant's claim that the plaintiffs are obligated to pay the sum of ILS 276,000 for the contents of the property, and before concluding, I will address the claim that defendant 2 is invalid.
- Reference to the defendant's claim for a counter-debt in the sum of ILS 270,000
- The defendant claimed a counter-debt of the plaintiffs, in the sum of ILS 270,000, in respect of the contents of the property. There is no room to accept this argument, and about it in the following paragraphs.
- Clause 6(h) of the sale agreement, with regard to the last payment of the consideration, stipulated as follows (emphases not in the original):
"Last payment - the balance of the consideration in the sum of ILS 2,000,000 (two million) will be paid by the buyer to the seller by bank check/bank transfer only until July 15, 2021 Against the delivery of possession and contents In the apartment..."