Civil Case (Tel Aviv) 57596-03-25 Bechor Shushan Zaban v. Eyal Horowitz

Judgment

Before the court, a claim by an apartment seller against the buyer for the consideration for furniture that he claimed he sold to the apartment buyer.

Submission of pleadings and hearings

1. On March 20, 2025, the plaintiff filed a statement of claim in which he sought to oblige the defendant to pay him the sum of ILS 120,000. The defendant filed a statement of defense, after requesting and receiving an extension, on June 3, 2025.  The court issued an order to submit evidence on July 20, 2025.  The plaintiff submitted his evidence, after requesting and receiving an extension, on September 4, 2025, and the defendant, after requesting and receiving an extension, on October 21, 2025.  The first hearing took place on December 9, 2025, in which the court set a date for hearing the evidence.  The second hearing took place on April 13, 2026, in which the plaintiff was interrogated on behalf of Adv. Roni Mishkovsky, Mr. Arik Derech and the plaintiff and on behalf of the defendant himself.  The transcript of the recorded hearing was received and published on May 5, 2026, and on that date the court issued an order to submit summaries.  The plaintiff submitted his summaries, after requesting and receiving an extension, on May 27, 2026, and the defendant, after requesting and receiving an extension, on July 3, 2026, and properly on July 5, 2026.

Discussion and Decision

2. The court must determine whether a contract was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant for the sale of furniture, and if so, what was agreed upon and if not, whether the defendant should be obligated by virtue of the laws of enrichment and not by law.

Has a contract been signed for the sale of furniture?

3. The plaintiff claimed in the statement of claim that he sold together with his deceased wife (the late Mrs. Ziva Zaban), in his capacity as custodian of the deceased's assets together with his daughter, Mrs. Hadas Zaban, in accordance with the approval to activate an enduring power of attorney dated July 22, 2021, all of their rights in a residential apartment number 19, with a registered area of 261.47 square meters in a residential building at 18 Yehezkel Streichman St. in Tel Aviv (hereinafter: "the apartment"), all within the framework of a sale agreement dated December 5, 2022 approved by the Tel Aviv Family Court on December 6, 2022 (hereinafter: the "Sale Agreement") and that the deceased passed away on December 13, 2023 and the sale was made in accordance with the enduring power of attorney prior to her death.  He further claimed that we are dealing with a luxury apartment that was sold to the defendant for a sum of ILS 14,000,000.  and that the defendant, an accountant by profession, purchased all the rights in the apartment in accordance with the sale agreement.  He further claimed that throughout the negotiation stage regarding the wording of the sale agreement, it was made clear to the defendant that some of the luxury movables in the apartment were not part of the sale (whose value is estimated at hundreds of thousands of shekels) and that a separate agreement would be signed regarding them, and that after negotiations between the parties, it was agreed to sell the apartment to the defendant at the price in the sale agreement, and it was also agreed that the movables would be sold for an additional sum of ILS 125,000, and the parties prepared a draft agreement for the purchase of the movables, which was approved as stated by the defendant.
4. The plaintiff further claimed that at the time of signing the sale agreement, the defendant was asked to sign the movable agreement, but due to the parties' waiting for the family court to approve the sale agreement, and due to the gentlemanly agreement between the parties, the movable agreement was not signed and the parties agreed that it would be signed after the sale agreement was completed, i.e., it would be approved by the family court. However, he argued, due to the consent and undertaking of the parties, he did not insist on the official signing of the movable agreement, since it was clear to the parties that the movables constituted an integral part of the sale.  He further claimed that prior to the delivery date of the apartment in October 2023, the defendant's attorney informed his attorney that he had to remove all the movables from the apartment and that he was shocked by the fact that the defendant was trying to evade his obligation to him, a few days before the delivery.  He further claimed that he immediately replied through his counsel that this was a shameful and improper evasion on the part of the defendant, which deserves to be rejected with both hands, and that it was a matter of complete bad faith on the part of the defendant who was trying to evade his undertaking to purchase the movables.  He further claimed that the apartment was delivered to the defendant on October 12, 2023, together with all the movables that had been agreed upon to be purchased by the defendant, and that the apartment was delivered under protest in relation to the movables.  He further claimed that the parties and/or anyone on their behalf tried to come to terms and the defendant even offered a reduced and ridiculous sum in relation to the movables, but was refused after he asked him to keep his word as agreed and pay the full amount for the movables.  He further argued that after all his attempts and/or anyone on his behalf to collect the amount of the claim from the defendant without legal proceedings were unsuccessful, he had no choice but to petition to obligate the defendant to pay for the movables.  The plaintiff petitioned to obligate the defendant by virtue of the Contracts Law (Remedies for Breach of Contract), 5731-1970 (hereinafter: the "Contracts Remedies Law"), to pay him the sum of ILS 120,000, together with linkage differentials and interest.
5. The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916The defendant argued in the statement of defense that the claim should be dismissed in limine in the absence of a cause, and that a perusal of the statement of claim shows that its contents, without attaching any additional documents, is sufficient to show that the claim cannot stand. He further claimed that the plaintiff filed a claim for his own breach of the sale agreement, when he left movables in the apartment that is the subject of the sale agreement in contravention of the provisions of the sale agreement, which are old and damaged objects, that he was forced to bear the cost of eviction at his own expense, and now the plaintiff is trying to charge him for them once again.  He further argued that the lawsuit was dismissed in limine because it was based on an alleged draft agreement that was not concluded and that according to the version in the statement of claim itself, there was no stage of offer and acceptance, and that the draft that was attached as Appendix 2 to the statement of claim lacked certain discretion and lacked certain discretion, so that it would be possible to conclude a valid contract.  He further argued that there is no dispute that the objects in the apartment were not part of the sale agreement in the sale agreement, which was signed in 2022, and that Appendix 2 to the statement of claim constitutes a draft agreement that was not signed.  He further claimed that more than a year after the signing of the sale agreement, the plaintiff admits that no contract was entered into in connection with the sale of the movables, and that at no stage did he agree to sign the draft drafted by the plaintiff.

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