I have read the decision of the Chairman of the Committee, the Honorable Justice Bornstein, and I agree with his conclusions and reasoning.
I am also of the opinion that during the appellant's cross-examination, a real difficulty arose in his version regarding the physical condition of the apartment at the time of purchase. The appellant had difficulty reconciling his version with the expert opinion that he himself had ordered in the framework of the proceeding he conducted against the contractor. The opinion and the photographs attached to it show, inter alia, a kitchen, toilets, shower stalls, flooring and various facilities and infrastructures, which testify that the apartment already existed at that time, the essential facilities and systems required for its use as a residential apartment.
This is compounded by photographs taken by the sellers shortly after the delivery of the apartment and transferred to the respondent, as well as photographs taken by a municipal inspector. These photographs, together with the expert opinion, are inconsistent with the description of the apartment by the appellant as an apartment in a "shell" condition.
There is no dispute that at the time of purchase, finishing works, supplementary work and various defects remained in the apartment. However, in the circumstances of the case, this does not change the character of the apartment as a residential apartment. Since most of the systems and facilities required for the use of the apartment already existed, the apartment, in my opinion, should not be regarded as a shell apartment.
I will add that the expert opinion, which was commissioned by the appellant himself and which constitutes material evidence for clarifying the condition of the apartment at the time of purchase, was not submitted by him in the first place, and only after the respondent insisted on its acceptance was it brought before the committee. This, too, must be given weight in the framework of examining the appellant's version.