When the entrepreneurial company with which they contracted collapses, and the financing parties enter the picture and appoint a receiver on their behalf, I believe that this is a crisis point at which it is possible to enable the purchaser who wishes to do so to realize the guarantee of the Sale Law in his possession and exit the project.
- I will respond to the collective considerations raised by the funding bodies.
I will reiterate that the purchase of the apartment in the project was not made by the buyer as part of a collective. He purchased the apartment independently and personally and is entitled to be released from such a purchase when the project is also facing difficulties independently and personally. It should not be collectively obligated.
- I believe that the guarantee The Sale Law It is also supposed to apply to other situations in which the buyer's right is violated, such as fundamental violations of the Sale Law and a significant delay in the schedule that prevents reasonable use of the apartment. This is a personal right, not a public one.
- The financing entities in our case, both from the mouths of Ms. Feldman Stickot and from the mouths of Mr. Ofer Nachman, emphasized the sensitivity with which they relate to the claims of the purchasers, and that "Their hearts are with them". It is possible that this is the case, but in practice this sensitivity does not find expression on the ground. The sensitivity must be translated into an economic understanding, and this was not the case in our case.
The financing bodies got into the thick of it with the filing of the application for enforcing liens. At that time, their attorney who was appointed as a receiver entered the picture and began to supervise the project significantly. According to the financing sources, this was done behind the scenes even before his actual appointment. This is also how the secured creditor was introduced into the project for the surpluses.
On the other hand, it is not possible to rule out what Mr. Dekel raised in the hearing of July 20,2026. In other words, the responsibility of the financing bodies for what happens in the project should not begin only with the appointment of the receiver. Their concern for the public interest of the successful completion of the project must be expressed from the beginning and not only from the time the project encounters difficulties. It is true that this requires a fundamental change. Not only in the guarantee premium The Sale Law, as the financing sources claim, but also in setting new rules of thumb that will give the buyer an additional layer of protection in supervising the project's progress.
- In my opinion, the existing arrangements should be expanded and collective mechanisms should be built that will balance the personal right of each purchaser with the public needs indicated by the financing bodies.
Since this has not been done so far, when the court is faced with the question of whether the personal right of the individual purchaser should be preferred to the collective public right, the answer, in my opinion, is unequivocal: the purchaser who made his purchase as a private person is entitled to be released from it as a private person. The guarantees of the Sale Law under the Sale of Apartments Law are intended to ensure the rights of the private purchaser and not the rights of a collective.