(From the decision of the Honorable Justice Weinstein of February 25,2025; see also the testimony of Mr. Avraham Sharvit, page 18, line 20; page 20, line 30)
In paragraph 32(c) of his summaries, the respondent details why the explanation for taking the mortgage was not proven and is not convincing, nor was it proven that any additional funds reached the companies (and see the testimony of Avraham Sharvit, page 21, line 7).
In any case, this circumstance is another indication of the degree of integration between the sales contracts and the construction contract.
- Fifth:, in my opinion, it is not possible to ignore the family connection (even if the Haifa Appeals Committee rejected the respondent's attempt to claim that the sellers and the contracting companies are the same): the contracting companies were not unrelated third parties, but corporations owned by the sellers' fathers. Admittedly, the individual sellers themselves did not personally undertake to complete the construction (see section 5.1.2.4 below"to the sales contracts), however, they were close parties, in the aforesaid sense, to those companies that were obligated to finish the construction of the apartments. The appellants were aware of this connection in real time, and saw the following decision."As of February 25,2025: "The appellants do not claim that they did not know about the family connection". This is an extraordinary circumstance that can be attributed weight, in my opinion. On the margins of this point, it should be mentioned that the contracting companies allowed each of the sellers to accumulate a debt in the sum of ILS 1 million"h. for construction work that was actually carried out, which does not necessarily reflect an accepted commercial relationship between construction companies and their private customers.
- Sixth, this is not a situation in which a construction project "Stuck" and the original owner was forced to sell his rights in the land and at the same time transfer his rights according to a building agreement. Here a short-term event occurred: only about 19 months passed from the date of the purchase of the complex from the Ben Yosef couple until its sale to the appellants, with the building contract signed only about five months before the sale to the appellants.
- In my opinion, the sum of the following circumstances"In order to support the conclusion that there was indeed "Undertaking on the part of the seller" for the completion of the construction, certainly according to the criteria outlined in the judgment Mark as detailed above. The sellers had the right to complete the construction - against the charge of the contracting companies close to them, as explained. The appellants, for their part, envisioned a transaction whose essence was the purchase of residential apartments (as the property was indeed referred to in the sale contracts; and as Mr. Avraham Sharvit put it: "Who will buy land in Caesarea with a skeleton on it, and that's it? And not build a house? (page 22, lines 15-16)). The combination of the advanced construction stage with the set of agreements described (which binds the construction contract with the sales contracts), and all this on the part of the sellers, leads to the conclusion that the appellants did not purchase "Other Property" For self-construction.
- In light of the above, I suggest to my colleagues on the Appeals Committee to reject the appeal and determine that they were purchased "Residential Apartments" As defined In section 9(c) to the law.
In view of the complexity of the issue of "undertaking on the part of the seller" and the developing case law on the subject, it is suggested that each party bear its own expenses.