The Limited Times

Now you can see non-English news...

The contractor promised and does not exist? There's something to do - Walla! Sentence

2021-06-24T15:12:10.440Z

Buyers of an apartment in the TMA project in Ashdod sued the contractor after receiving a small apartment of its original size, considerably late and with significant construction defects.



  • Sentence

  • Real estate and real estate

The contractor promised and does not exist?

There is something to do

Buyers of an apartment in the TMA project in Ashdod sued the contractor after receiving a small apartment of its original size, considerably late and with significant construction defects.

Tags

  • Contractors

Adv. Danny Gal, in collaboration with Zap Legal

Thursday, 17 June 2021, 15:05 Updated: 15:11

  • Share on Facebook

  • Share on WhatsApp

  • Share on general

  • Share on general

  • Share on Twitter

  • Share on Email

Construction (Photo: ShutterStock)

Many times, when a contractor does not meet the original obligations or is late in delivering an apartment, the property owners avoid a lawsuit thinking that the contractor is legally covered because compliance with the contract is subject to permits, but the case of Ashdod property owners who sued the contractor for late delivery, small apartment space and defects Various construction proves that despite the contract ostensibly covering the contractor in most clauses, there is certainly something to be done.



In this case it appeared that the contractor was indeed legally covered since the signing of the contract was prior to obtaining a building permit, and it was explicitly stated that the contractor might not be able to deliver what he promised.

Moreover, the contractor signed the property owners on updated plans more than a year after the signing and thus apparently updated them on the changes, but despite this, attorneys Danny Gal and Yaniv Aharon from the law firm Aharon Gal & Co. in Ashdod proved in court that the contractor acted in deception and bad faith .

More on Walla!

Are you also entitled to a discount of thousands of shekels in property taxes?

To the full article

Lack of good faith

The lawyers based the allegation of deception and bad faith on several points in the contractor's conduct.

The first is the fact that in a contract signed in August 2013, the contractor promised the property owners an addition of a large balcony, subject to obtaining a permit.

But by this time he already knew that neighbors in the adjoining building had filed objections to the construction of the balconies, and their objection was accepted, i.e. at the time of signing the contract the contractor already knew well that he could not build balconies in the TMA project. That no action he took to try and train the large balconies and nevertheless added the balconies to the contract in sizes that do not match the correct planning condition.



The other default of the contractor was that only after a year and a half of signing the contract, he updated the buyers that he would not be able to supply the balconies and signed them to a new plan.

The purchasers, Tomam, believed that the contractor was only updated at that time because there is no permit for the balconies, but this was far from the truth.

Significant impairment of property value

The fact that the contractor's plans to enlarge the balconies were rejected, caused the area of ​​the apartment to be significantly smaller so here too one can see how the contractor's conduct in bad faith had a decisive impact on the end result. Another claim of the plaintiffs was for significant defects in the property, which were not repaired by the contractor despite their inquiries. Attorneys Danny Gal and Yaniv Aharon were able to prove that the contractor's misconduct, that although he undertook in the limited agreement to make urgent repairs immediately and no later than 24 hours and other repairs within a reasonable time, the repairs were not made after receiving a claim from the plaintiffs. Only two years after the lawsuit was filed.



The court accepted all the claims of attorneys Gal and Aharon, and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs a considerable sum of NIS 340,000, when the value of the purchase of the apartment was NIS 1,140,000.

Attorney Danny wave

from the law firm Aaron wave Co.



website of the Attorney Danny Gal



article

courtesy of Zap legal



information presented in the article does not constitute legal advice or a substitute for it and does not constitute a recommendation for proceedings or avoiding proceedings.

Anyone who relies on the information in the article does so at his own risk

  • Share on Facebook

  • Share on WhatsApp

  • Share on general

  • Share on general

  • Share on Twitter

  • Share on Email

Source: walla

All news articles on 2021-06-24

You may like

Trends 24h

Latest

© Communities 2019 - Privacy