In other words, each purchaser (appellant) undertook to repay the seller's existing debt to the contracting company - a debt in the amount of ILS 1 million, which was formed before the date of the sale, for construction that had already been carried out.
- In addition, in accordance with clause 5.1.2.2 of the sales contract, "The buyer will be obligated to fulfill all other obligations of the 'client' in the construction agreement in connection with the seller's apartment, including the obligation to pay the balance of the work in respect of the seller's apartment... in a total amount of ILS 1,000,000"VIII."
This additional charge, also in the amount of ILS 1 million per purchaser, relates to the future debt that each seller was expected to owe to the contracting company for the completion of the construction (as may be recalled, each seller undertook to pay a total of ILS 2 million for the construction of his apartment).
- The sale contract also stipulates that "The buyer hereby stepped into the seller's shoes in the construction agreement regarding the continuation of the seller's apartment" (Section 5.1.2 Risha). On the basis of this provision, a contract was signed between each buyer (appellant) and the seller "Letter of assignment of rights" According to it, all the rights and obligations of the sellers in accordance with the construction contract are transferred to the appellant, which in effect obligated the appellant to complete the construction through those contracting companies.
- However, it is clarified in clause 5.1.2.4 of the sale contract that:
"The seller will not be responsible in any way for the manner, nature and degree of fulfillment of the company's obligations under the construction agreement, both with respect to the construction period prior to the signing of this sales contract and with respect to the continuation of the construction. "
It is clear that this limitation of liability is at the basis of the appellants' argument that in the present case there was no "undertaking on the part of the seller to finish the construction" as required by the definition of the term "residential apartment" in the Real Estate Taxation Law as quoted above.
- Here it should be noted that another fact, which is not in dispute: the contracting company Shai Hai Entrepreneurship Ltd."M is owned by Mr. Ofer Biton, the father of the seller Roni Biton. At the same time, the contracting company A. Aharon Development and Construction Ltd."M is owned by Mr. Ilan Aharon, the father of the seller, Yuval Aharon. As stated, the rights to the two companies are"were assigned by the sellers to the appellants.
Subsequently, in the framework of the appeal proceedings that took place before the Appeals Committee in Haifa, the Respondent sought to raise an argument, based on the aforesaid family relationship, according to which the sellers and the contracting companies are one, for the purpose of implementing the provision of the law in the matter of "Undertaking on the part of the seller" (In other words, the respondent sought to argue that an undertaking by the companies to complete the construction by virtue of the building contract also constitutes an undertaking on the part of the sellers themselves). However, in view of the widening of the front involved in raising the aforementioned argument at the appeal stage, the Haifa Committee refused to address it. In its decision of February 25,2025, the Honorable Justice Weinstein held that: