Adv. Arbiv: Now you said you got the refrigerator and you got the elevator.
The witness, Mr. Greenbaum: I couldn't dismantle them. There is a difference between what I received. We moved all the furniture that could be moved. There is nothing left that can be dismantled that we have not dismantled, and if you could dismantle the elevator as well, I would dismantle it for you. But you are right, because there is an elevator in the apartment, we couldn't dismantle it and it really stayed. I am not opposed to this argument.
- On the other hand, there is no dispute that the contents were indeed not delivered on July 15, 2021, since the entire apartment was not delivered on that date, but only almost two years later; Moreover , the defendant did not prove that the contents were indeed delivered; Moreover , the defendant did not prove that contents that were stored and for which notice was given were not collected; Moreover , the defendant admitted in practice during his interrogation mainly the plaintiff's words, and made accusations against defendant 2, his ex-partner. Among other things, the plaintiff testified - "... When I left, there were no dogs, the dogs scratched it..." (P. of September 17, 2025, p. 9, s. 22).
- As stated, the delay in delivering the apartment constitutes a fundamental breach of the sale agreement. Therefore, the plaintiffs have the right to cancel the entire agreement or the breached part. In our case, the delivery of the contents should have taken place on the date of delivery of the apartment on July 15, 2021. In practice, possession of the apartment was handed over to the plaintiffs nearly two years after the contractual delivery date. In light of all of the above, I determine that the contents agreement was lawfully cancelled.
- In the margins, it should be said that if it had been determined that the contents agreement was not lawfully cancelled - then there would have been room to charge the defendants, out of the sum of ILS 270,000 in the sum of ILS 250,000 for the cost of using the pool - in this regard see the discussion in section 9.4 above.
- Finally, as to the defendant's claim of a counter-debt in the sum of ILS 270,000
In light of the above, the defendant's claim of a counter-debt in the sum of ILS 270,000 should not be accepted.
- A note before concluding - as to the claim that defendant 2 was recognized as a miscarriage of justice
In his summary, the defendant argues that the defendant was declared invalid "and in practice is not, and has not been legally competent for all intents and purposes." (Paragraph 3 of the defendant's summaries). This statement will not be able to change the outcome of the judgment, and in this regard the following will be brought:
- First, at no stage was a reference attached to the fact that the defendant was a void of law.
- Second, on the face of it, the Legal Capacity and Guardianship Law, 5722-1962 does not directly address the status of legal actions of a person with a mental impairment who has not been declared or has not yet been declared incapacitated. However, the rule states that: "Declaring a person incompetent is constitutional, has no retroactive application, and does not detract from a person's legal capacity in the period preceding it. Moreover, even if the conditions for declaring a person incompetent were met at the time he committed any acts before he was declared incapacitated, all of his previous actions are valid." [Civil Appeal Authority 4428/10 Anonymous v. Compensation Officer (January 27, 2011, Judge Y. Danziger); and see also Tax Appeal 946/08 Anonymous v. Anonymous (May 26, 2008, A. Rubinstein); Civil Appeals Authority 3323/98 Zaken v. Compensation Officer, IsrSC 57(5) 577 (July 2, 2003, Judge T. Strasberg-Cohen, and Judges Y. Englard and E. Rivlin)].
- Conclusion
- From all of the above, it appears that the defendants should be charged, jointly and severally, in the sum of ILS 1,000,000 [see section 8.7(a) above]; as well as the sum of ILS 13,599 [see clause 10.1(c) above]; and the sum of ILS 4,265 [see clause 10.2(c) above].
- The total amounts amount to ILS 1,017,864 (= 1,000,000 + 13,599 + 4,265) and will bear linkage differences from March 19, 2024, the date of filing the amended statement of claim until the actual payment.
Therefore, the claim is partially accepted. I order the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay the sum of ILS 1,017,864 plus linkage differentials and interest as required by law from March 19, 2024 until the date of actual payment. Inaddition, I order the defendants, jointly and severally, to pay legal expenses and attorney's fees in the total amount of ILS 59,000 plus linkage differentials and interest as required by law from the date of the judgment until the date of actual payment.