0
- Hearing of seven additional components of the ten remedies to which the plaintiffs petitioned, as detailed in paragraph 2 above
As stated above, after a discussion of one of the remedies of the claim, the agreed compensation remedy, a discussion of seven additional components of the claim will be brought in the following paragraphs. The remedies that I will discuss below appear in detail in section 2(a) as well as in sections 2(c) to 2(h) above.
- The plaintiffs' demand for compensation for loss of yield in the sum of ILS 499,200 should be rejected [the first remedy that appears above in paragraph 2(a) of the judgment]
The plaintiffs claimed a loss of return in the sum of ILS 499,200. This sum is in respect of the possible return of ILS 8,000,000 that they paid on time to the plaintiffs for the property. There is no room to accept this argument, and in this regard the following will be brought:
- First, why should the demand for compensation for loss of yield not be accepted - there is no reason to accept the argument since in practice, the claim was already abandoned in the summary of the remedies of the amended statement of claim. The remedy mentioned in paragraph 36 of the amended statement of claim did not find its way into the consolidated list of remedies, and no fee was even paid for it. Moreover, even in the framework of the plaintiffs' summaries, this sum was not included in the scope of the required remedies - and see section 73, which concludes the plaintiffs' summaries.
- Second, why should the demand for compensation for loss of yield not be accepted - at the end of the day, the sale agreement is enforced. Insofar as the agreement between the parties was null and void, it would have been correct to award the plaintiffs linkage differentials and interest on the amount held by the defendants and eroded. However, when the agreement is enforced, there is no room to award loss of return, even if only because it is a consideration that was paid to the defendants for the apartment that was indeed delivered to the plaintiffs.
- There is room to accept the plaintiffs' demand for compensation for rent in the sum of ILS 244,500, subject to the fact that it is not a matter of double compensation [a third remedy that appears above in paragraph 2(c) of the judgment]
The defendants' breach of the agreement caused them not to receive possession of the apartment. Hence, they are entitled to pay rent for the delay in delivery, a total of ILS 244,400. In this regard, the defendant even admitted the plaintiffs' right to receive the rent and in his words (Tax Appeal 11 para., paras. 7-14, emphases not original):