The defendant's arguments
- According to the defendant, this is an outrageous and unjustified lawsuit that was filed in bad faith and in an attempt to enrich himself illegally at the defendant's expense.
- With regard to the defects, the defendant claims that the plaintiffs' apartment is of the highest standard of construction and finishing. The apartment was handed over to the plaintiffs when it was fit for habitation without dampness, all of its systems were in good working order, and the air conditioning system was in good working order and in accordance with the planning and the provisions of the sale agreement. At the time of delivery, only 13 defects were recorded, which were corrected and regulated by the defendant. The defendant took the plaintiffs' inquiries seriously and corrected the deficiencies that the plaintiffs raised in their letters and in the engineer's report on their behalf, even if some of them were not included in the defendant's responsibility, while maintaining continuous and substantive contact with them. As for the claims of incompatibility, it was recorded in the apartment plans that they are subject to changes according to the contractor's decisions and that there may be deviations in the plans and dimensions.
- With regard to the affiliation of the apartment, according to the defendant, no misrepresentation was made regarding the attribution of the apartment to Matza Illit. The Arza complex belongs to Motza Illit. This is also the case on the "Wikipedia" website under the article "Pack". The defendant conducted itself with full frankness and transparency and compiled all relevant information for the buyers in order to have all the data necessary to make an informed decision regarding the purchase of the apartment. In accordance with clause 2.2 of the Sale Agreement, the responsibility for a reasonable inspection of the land, its location and surroundings, as well as the city building plans applicable to it, applies to the buyer. The plaintiffs did not carry out the necessary checks, so that as long as they have a complaint, they have nothing to complain about but themselves. The plaintiff is a veteran and experienced lawyer in the field of real estate, and the apartment was purchased at a stage when it was almost ready, so that the plaintiffs knew or should have known where the project was located in relation to the old settlement, what were the access roads to the complex and where their apartment was located. Moreover, the plaintiffs were not harmed by the purchase of the apartment in the project, and this claim was made without foundation.
- Thedefendant further claimed that she treated the plaintiffs with extreme sensitivity, waived their charge of interest differentials and linkage to the price of the apartment, agreed to postpone the sum of approximately ILS 500,000 to the date of delivery, and agreed to their request to make changes to the apartment, even though at the time they purchased the apartment the project was in an advanced stage of construction and no tenant changes were approved. On the other hand, the plaintiffs acted with ingratitude, incessant grievances, threats of proceedings, casting aspersions and negative publicity on the defendant in every possible forum, and even with personal attacks on the defendant's professional elements. In addition, the plaintiffs breached the sale agreement by refusing to pay management fees, refusing to accept possession of the apartment, and delaying payment of consideration. The plaintiffs caused the defendant enormous damages - financial and image - so that the plaintiffs do not deserve any compensation for mental anguish, but rather they are the ones who must compensate the defendant for the mental anguish and the damages caused to her.
- Therefore, the defendant argues that the claim should be dismissed and the plaintiffs should be charged with the defendant's expenses, including attorney's fees.
The Proceeding and the Parties' Evidence
- The parties' evidence was submitted as part of the affidavits of the main witness. On behalf of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff and other tenants of the project testified - Mr. Ran Stern (hereinafter: "Stern"), Mr. Matti Faraji (hereinafter: "Faraji"), and Mr. Yoel Cohen (hereinafter: "Cohen"). On behalf of the plaintiff, an additional affidavit was submitted on behalf of Mr. Shlomo Rabinovich, but he did not appear for interrogation, and accordingly his affidavit continued (p. 16, paragraph 15 of the transcript of the hearing of February 19, 2025).
Two opinions were submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs: the opinion of the engineer Jonathan Zangipur, according to which the cost of the damages due to the defects is estimated at ILS 88,320 plus VAT. The plaintiffs also submitted an appraiser's opinion on their behalf, the appraiser Yaakov Petel (submitted on February 23, 2022), according to which there is a decrease in the value of the apartment in the amount of ILS 150,000 (this is apparently the appraiser's intention, even though it was recorded with the words: "One hundred and seventeen thousand NIS").
- On behalf of the defendant, Mr. Meir Simcha, VP of Engineering and Planning at the defendant (hereinafter: "Simcha") and Mr. Yossi Deri, who acted as the CEO of the project's execution contractor (a liquidation company) (hereinafter: "Deri"). The defendant submitted an opinion by Engineer Berginer Emil (submitted on November 23, 2021) according to which the cost of repairing the defects in the apartment is estimated at ILS 900 plus a tax appeal to correct the findings and a sum of ILS 1,950 plus a tax appeal for ongoing maintenance.
- In view of the discrepancy between the opinions, I have appointed an expert on behalf of the court, the engineer and real estate appraiser, Mr. Zvi Ron (hereinafter: "the court expert" or "the expert"); Decision of December 5, 2022). The expert was asked, inter alia, to determine what the defects were in the apartment; What works are required to correct these deficiencies; And what is the cost of carrying out the required work. He was also asked for his opinion regarding the dispute regarding the decrease in the value of the apartment as a result of the alleged defects, and if there is a decrease in value, what is its rate.
- The court's expert opinion was submitted on April 9, 2024 (hereinafter: the "Opinion"). The court's expert was questioned as part of the hearing on January 22, 2025. The witnesses on behalf of the parties were questioned as part of the hearing that took place on February 19, 2025 (references will be made to the transcripts of the hearing respectively). The parties summarized their arguments in writing.
Discussion and Decision