The defendant did not send the land survey to the plaintiffs. He also did not inform them of the conclusion that the execution of the land survey was postponed after the date of the demolition and that it would not be possible to carry out the construction until the survey was completed and the approval of the Ministry of the Environment was obtained.
- On March 7, 2016, the defendant informed the purchasers that on March 6, 2016, the permit had been received and attached to his letter the building permit. Even at this time, the defendant did not inform the purchasers that the survey of the land had not been completed and that there was a demand for its completion before the start of the construction of the gas station.
Idan testified in this regard as follows:
"It is not possible to carry out the examination of the land as long as there is a structure, and the person responsible for demolishing the structure is the purchasers as written in the agreement, and therefore the inspection cannot be done at all. So it is clear that at the stage of receiving the permit, when the land is still with me, it is not possible to perform these tests" (p. 155 of the minutes of November 18, 2024).
Thus, it was clear to Idan that the survey had not been completed, and despite this, neither he nor the defendant saw fit to inform the purchasers of the additional task that had been placed before them, and of the possibility that the Ministry of the Environment would place additional requirements on them as a condition for the commencement of construction.
In his interrogation, I asked Idan to clarify how the purchasers should have understood that they were required to carry out the land survey in his place (transcript of November 18, 2024, pp. 149-151). Initially, Idan claimed that the condition appeared as part of the conditions of the building permit dated March 6, 2016, but later confirmed that he only assumed that the condition appeared in the permit and that he had not checked the conditions of the permit at all (p. 165).
- What emerges from the aggregate is that the land, as it was delivered to the plaintiffs, does not conform to their definition in the agreement, and the sale suffers from a lack of conformity within the meaning of section 11 of the Sale Law, 5728-1968 (hereinafter: the Sale Law). This discrepancy is reflected in the fact that no ground inspection was carried out, which is a material examination, and the opinion of the Regional Environmental Protection Unit was not obtained, actions that the defendant should have performed as part of the conditions of the approval in principle and as a condition for obtaining the building permit. In the agreement, the defendant undertook to complete all the conditions set out in the approval in principle, he made a representation as if these actions had been completed, and thus there is a gap between the quality of the land as agreed in the agreement, and the land as delivered to the plaintiffs.
00