Civil Case (St.) 44883-10-20 Dior Adar Ltd. v. Netanel Group Ltd.

Judgment

This judgment concerns a claim filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for delay in the delivery of a commercial property that she built for her.  The defendant, for its part, petitions to dismiss the claim, due to an allegation of oral agreements for delay in delivery, along with other arguments in the matter.  In the margins of the judgment and not in the margins, we will deal with the issue of the assessment of the rent for the property that is the subject of the lawsuit.

General background and summary of the parties' arguments in a nutshell

1. The case before me concerns the plaintiff's petition, a private company engaged in the field of real estate, against the defendant, a public company, which is also engaged in the field of real estate, which erected an office and commercial building in the Science Park in Rehovot; for compensation for the delay in the delivery of commercial property, which the defendant was required to deliver in accordance with the provisions of the agreement between them.

The Facts That Are Not in Dispute and the Curtain of Dispute

2. On July 21, 2015, the parties entered into a sale agreement (hereinafter: the agreement or the sale agreement), in which the defendant sold to the plaintiff a store of 262.2 square meters on the ground floor of a project in plots 193 and 197 in Block 3695, in the Science Park in Rehovot (hereinafter: the project, the property or the store, respectively), which was under construction at the time, for a sum of ILS 7,131,840. A plan of the store was attached to the agreement as an appendix.  To complete the picture, it should be noted that 3 stores are intended to be built on the ground floor of the project.
3. According to a partnership agreement dated February 25, 2014 (hereinafter: the Sharing Agreement) and a construction agreement entered into between the companies that own the land: the defendant - on the one hand, and the Housing Company (A.P.Z.) Ltd[1]. (hereinafter: P.Z.  Housing) - which is not a party to the proceeding before me - on the other hand, the rights in two of the stores (Stores 2 and 3) were assigned to A.P.Z.  Housing, while the rights in the third store (Store 1), which is the store that is the subject of our lawsuit, were assigned to the defendant from the outset.  The lawsuit is concerned with an agreement dealing with the sale of the third store, which was designated for the defendant, to the plaintiff.  It should be noted already that the plaintiff in question is a company that was established for the purpose of handling the store in question (see: p.  2, paras.  29-30 of the hearing of January 1, 2024).
4. As part of the agreement, the defendant undertook to build the store for the plaintiff and to complete and deliver it to the plaintiff in shell condition - when it is completed, in accordance with technical specifications and plans (hereinafter: the specifications), after receiving Form 4, and free of any person and object, all no later than 12 months from the date of signing the agreement, with the possibility of a postponement not exceeding 3 months (clauses 5.1 and 5.2 of the agreement), i.e., until October 21, 2016. The agreement further stipulated that in the event that the delivery of the store is postponed beyond the aforementioned date, then the plaintiff will be entitled to compensation in the amounts specified in the Sale Law (Apartments), 5733-1973 (hereinafter: the Sale of Apartments Law). 
5. The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916 The scope of the dispute extends, mainly, in relation to the date of delivery of the store: according to the plaintiff, the defendant delivered the store to her only on August 27, 2019 (hereinafter: the official delivery date), nearly three years later than the date stated in the agreement; whereas according to the defendant, the store was delivered earlier, either on the date of receipt of Form 4, or at an earlier date.

12-34-56-78 Chekhov v.  State of Israel, P.D.  51 (2)