Although the provisions of the law are clear, there will be no need to appeal to the Civil Appeals Authority 6642/13 Roxie Construction and Investments in a Tax Appeal v. Falkovi Construction and Investment Company in a Tax Appeal (January 1, 2015, Judge M. Naor, and Judges A. Fogelman and N. Sohlberg) where it was held as follows (emphases not in the original) - "Where two debtors undertake jointly and severally and do not fulfill the obligation, The creditor has three alternatives to repay the debt (assuming that it is an obligation to pay a sum of money): he is entitled to sue and repay the debt in full from the first debtor or from the second debtor, or from both together (part of this and part of it, all as he sees fit), provided that he does not repay more than the amount of the debt."
For further information, see also Civil Appeal 967/22, Immediate Medical Treatment (TRM) v. Estate of the late Avigail Pessia Gross z"l (dated March 30, 2023, Judge (as he was then called) Y. Amit, Judge A. Grosskopf, Judge H. Kababov); and Civil Appeal (Tel Aviv District) 61983-01-23, Rappaport v. Tel Aviv New Central Bus Station Management Company 1988 in Tax Appeal et al. (dated May 9, 2023, Sgt. Judge Abigail Cohen).
- In light of the aforesaid, a joint charge by the defendants grants the plaintiffs, the creditors, the right to claim the existence of the obligation from each of the debtors separately or from both of them together, regardless of the question of internal division between them. Therefore, the defendant's claim that he performed his part of the agreement and his claim that the defendant was the sole cause of the alleged violations are irrelevant. These arguments do not exempt the defendant from liability to the plaintiffs for the full liability set out in the sale agreement. This is the starting point for the judgment. Insofar as the defendant has any claim against the defendant, as to the division of the liability between them, the way to do so is through a proceeding and discussion between the defendants themselves, in accordance with the provisions of section 6 of the Contracts Law (General Part).
- Reference to the Agreed Compensation Demand
- At the end of the day, the defendants did not deliver the apartment to the plaintiffs on time, and hence the agreement was fundamentally breached. A breach that establishes the plaintiffs' right to the agreed compensation.
- The date of delivery of possession of the apartment is set in clause 7A of the sale agreement, for July 15, 2021 at the latest. In the words of the agreement (Appendix 1 to the statement of claim, emphases not in the original):
"The seller undertakes to hand over possession of the apartment to the buyer, and this Until July 15, 2021 When the apartment is empty of any person and object, when it includes everything connected to the apartment and all the contents of the house as defined in Appendix B in its condition as it was at the time of signing this agreement, except for wear and tear due to reasonable and normal use, and when all the apartment's facilities and systems are in good working order, and when it is free of any debt and/or mortgage and/or lien and/or order on the apartment, and provided that the consideration was previously paid in full as specified in section 6"