Civil Case (B.Y.) 64078-07-21 Asher Sharvit v. Azorim Building (1965) Ltd.

Judgment

I have before me a financial-tort claim in the sum of ILS 653,334 for monetary compensation relating to an agreement for the purchase of an apartment that was entered into between the plaintiffs and the defendant.

Background

1. The plaintiffs, Asher and Yael Sharvit (hereinafter: "the plaintiff", "the plaintiff" and jointly "the plaintiffs") purchased from the defendant, Azorim Building (1965) in a tax appeal (hereinafter: "the defendant"), a five-room garden apartment in a project located in the Arza complex at 10/2 Arza St.  in Motza Illit (hereinafter: "the apartment" and "the project" respectively) in accordance with a sale agreement dated June 7, 2016 (hereinafter: the "Sale Agreement").
2. The contractual delivery date of the apartment was supposed to be around September 15, 2016, but in practice the apartment was delivered to the plaintiffs only on March 7, 2017.

Summary of the parties' arguments

Summary of the plaintiffs' arguments

Construction Defects

1. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant gave them an apartment with defects and defects, thus breaching the sale agreement.  Prior tothe delivery of the apartment, many defects and discrepancies were discovered in it.  In addition, changes were discovered that deviated from the sales plan and technical specifications.  Their appeals to the defendant, both in writing and orally, were to no avail.  The defendant corrected only a limited number of defects and partially ignored their requests, including an engineering opinion that was presented, and the plaintiffs were forced to repair some of the defects at their own expense.
2. The defendant was given many opportunities to correct the defects, but she failed to do so and did not fulfill her duty, and thus waived her right to correct the defects.
3. According to the plaintiffs, the delivery of the apartment in this manner, not in accordance with the sale plan, constitutes a breach of the sale agreement and the failure to fulfill the sale agreement in good faith in accordance with sections 12 and 39 of the Contracts (General Part) Law, 5733-1973 (hereinafter: the "Contracts Law") and also in contravention of section 6 of the Sale Law, 5728-1968 (hereinafter: the "Sale Law").  The plaintiffs further claim that the defendant was negligent in its conduct and actions; and that it also violated the following statutory obligations: the provisions of the Israeli standard, the Sale Law (Apartments), 5733-1973 (hereinafter: "the Sale (Apartments) Law"), the Planning and Building Regulations (Permit Application, its Terms and Fees), 5730-1970, the Provisions for Sanitation Facilities (3741-1970), the Civil Defense Law, 5711-1951 and the Contracting Contract Law, 1974.  I will already note here that in the framework of their summaries, the plaintiffs abandoned their claims of grounds by virtue of the breach of statutory duties, and therefore I did not find it necessary to address them.
4. The many defects, the many attempts to get the defendant to correct the deficiencies and the defendant's irresponsible conduct caused the plaintiffs great anguish and caused them to lose their enjoyment of their residence, frustration, waste of time and loss of work days.

Deception and misrepresentation regarding the attribution of the apartment

1. The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916In addition, the plaintiffs claim that the defendant breached the agreement by misleading them and presenting a false representation that the apartment is located in the settlement of "Motza Illit", which is a settlement with a prestigious status; While the project is not located in the municipal area of Motza Illit.  This misrepresentation is made in all marketing materials and publications about the project, during the negotiations, and in the sale agreement and its appendices.  Only after receiving the apartment did the plaintiffs find out that the Arza complex, including the project, was not located in the municipal area of Motza Illit, and was not even municipal affiliated with any other settlement at the time.
2. 12-34-56-78 Chekhov v.  State of Israel, Pis.  D.  51 (2)Only years later, during the year 2022-2023, and after hard work by the project committee and other people who were in contact with the Regional Council and the Ministry of the Interior, and despite the opposition of the settlement of Motza Illit, the project was officially annexed to the municipal area of Motza Illit.
3. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant acted in bad faith, amounting to a breach of agreement, both in the negotiation process with them and in the course of the execution of the agreement, in contravention of sections 12 and 39 of the Contracts Law, and section 6 of the Sale Law, and deliberately misled them within the meaning of this expression in section 15 of the Contracts Law.
4. The plaintiffs petition for compensation in accordance with the following details:

1. The cost of repairing the defects in accordance with the opinion of the engineering expert on their behalf in the sum of ILS 103,334;
2. compensation for depreciation due to construction in contravention of the sale plan and irreparable defects in the sum of ILS 250,000;

• compensation for mental anguish and waste of time in the amount of ILS 200,000;

1. Compensation for the plaintiffs' misleading assignment of the apartment to Motza Illit in the amount of ILS 100,000.

This is in addition to legal expenses, attorney's fees and VAT.