... The construction contract between the sellers and the contracting companies was signed prior to the conclusion of the sale agreement, and this contract, with its terms, was before the appellants as a fait accompli at the time of signing the sale agreement. The appellant did not bring any objective-external evidence for his claim that he could have purchased the land and continued the construction through another contractor. " (from paragraphs 27 and 28(c) of the respondent's summaries).
I will say with regard to this last argument that it has little weight in my opinion: a reasonable seller of real estate, who has already entered into a building contract with a contractor, will try to assign his obligations under the contracting contract to the purchaser of the land, in order not to remain obligated to the contractor. The buyer will probably be forced to agree to this condition if he wants to buy the land itself, and this situation, in my opinion, does not lead to the conclusion that there is an "undertaking on the part of the seller to finish the construction", as required by the definition of the term "residential apartment".
- Application of the Law and Case Law in the Present Case
- After weighing the facts of the case and in light of the development of the case law, I have reached the conclusion that there is room to dismiss the appeal: the appellants in question did indeed purchase from the sellers "Package" which included both a right to the land and an obligation to finish the construction. The essence of the transaction was the purchase of apartments in an advanced stage of construction, and not entry into the"Adventure" of self-construction on a purchased lot.
- A series of circumstances may be enumerated that support the respondent's position that it was purchased "Residential Apartment" As it means In section 9(c) to the law.
- First, the appellants were assigned all the rights of the sellers vis-à-vis the contracting companies that undertook in the construction contract to carry out and complete the construction; see, for example, clauses 2.1,3.1,5.1 and 8.1 of the construction contract of June 5,2022. It is clarified there (in clause 2.1) that the work commissioned by the companies "Comprehensives and includes all the actions, tasks and works of any kind that will be required and will be involved in the construction of the apartments in accordance with the building permit and specifications, including the development works specified in the building permit and the specifications until the full completion of the construction, obtaining a 'Form 4'/Certificate of Completion, and connecting the apartments with a permanent connection to the electricity, water and sewage networks.".
As stated, all these obligations were transferred in favor of the appellants following the conclusion of the sale contracts.
- I do not believe that the testimony of the appellant, Mr. Avraham Sharvit, before the Haifa Appeals Committee, detracts from the importance or scope of the undertakings that were received:
"... I was in the construction itself, every day I came to see what was being done, how things were moving, how it was progressing, the quality of the work. I was there every day for seven or eight months, until we finished the two houses... I supervised the construction of the two houses." (Page 19, line 30 to line 32)