In fact, the plaintiffs could have better understood what they had signed and learned about the location of the parking, including the difference in levels and access roads to their apartment, even before they signed the agreement.
If the court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs could have relied solely on the sale plans that they signed, the information appearing in this plan is partial (only the levels of the buildings and not the level of the parking lot/road) and therefore, it was not possible to understand the "full picture".
- It seems to me that in light of the opinion, in view of the proceeding and the ruling, it is clear to me that it is precisely when we are dealing with a transaction "on paper", before it is possible to get an impression of the situation on the ground, the contractor must reflect the state of things to the buyer "in Rachel, your little daughter", that the parking is not adjacent to the building and is not on the same level. It is not enough to support Shafir's claim that the plaintiffs signed the parking drawing, the sale agreement, in which they declared that they had inspected and seen the land (clause 3.1 of the agreement) and that they should have been assisted by a professional.
As stated, I do not accept these arguments, and I am of the opinion that a contractor has an increased duty of disclosure. Even if I accept Shafir's arguments that all the plaintiff was interested in was the price of the apartment (p. 26, paras. 33-34), this does not exempt Shafir, and she must fulfill her duty.
- Moreover, the parking lot was defined as 45 "Elite", and this does not imply that this is a building located on a lower level than the parking lot of Building 18. On the contrary - from a linguistic point of view, it is understood that this is an "above" parking lot, as its name implies.
- Moreover, see section 16 of the Sale Law, 5728-1968 , according to which the responsibility for discovering a non-conformity lies at the seller's doorstep. The case law interprets this provision as imposing increased liability on the seller and adopting the principle: "The seller shall be careful" and not "the buyer shall be careful". Therefore, the mere possibility that the buyer could have discovered the defect in a reasonable inspection, and even if he was negligent in the inspection, does not in itself negate the seller's liability (see and compare: Civil Case (Tel Aviv District) 23501-10-15 Yehuda Export and Import Ltd. Ampa Ltd. [published inNevo] December 27,2019)).
- I am convinced that Shafir did not exercise proper disclosure as expected of a contracting company, with regard to the location of the parking lot. Therefore, the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation, and there is no reason to attribute to the plaintiffs "contributory fault" for their declarations in the sale agreement that they inspected the property (see: Civil Appeal 8068/11 Eini v. Shifris [published in Nevo] (February 11,2014)).
Therefore, I saw fit to adopt the expert opinion of the court, who determined that the depreciation in respect of the parking was estimated at ILS 1,7, 000.