Court Orders Developer to Transfer Apartment Despite Buyer's Payment Delays
Translated & summarized from Bizportal by baba
A court in Be'er Sheva ruled a real estate contract valid despite buyers delaying payments by four months. The buyers, Rami Rahamim Cohen and Aviad Cohen, must pay NIS 118,706 in penalties for the delay. The developer, S.A.I. - Or Company for Building Trade, Development and Investments, was ordered to transfer the apartment and pay NIS 25,000 in costs. The judge cited the company's failure to follow proper cancellation procedures and its actions suggesting the deal was still on.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Court orders apartment transfer to buyers despite four-month payment delay.
- Buyers must pay NIS 118,706 in penalties for late payments.
- Developer S.A.I. - Or Company ordered to pay NIS 25,000 in costs.
- Judge cited developer's failure to follow contract's cancellation procedures.
- Buyers Rami Rahamim Cohen and Aviad Cohen were involved in the case.
A district court in Be'er Sheva has ruled that a real estate contract remains valid despite buyers delaying payments by approximately four months. The buyers, Rami Rahamim Cohen and Aviad Cohen, purchased a garden apartment in the "Madregai Rafael" project in Sderot for NIS 1.4 million. They were late in making the initial NIS 140,000 down payment by a month and a half, and the remaining NIS 1.26 million was transferred about four months after the agreed-upon deadline.
Despite the significant delays, Judge Gala Levin ruled that the contract was still in effect. She ordered the contracting company, S.A.I. - Or Company for Building Trade, Development and Investments, to transfer the apartment to the buyers and register it in their names. The company was also ordered to pay NIS 25,000 in legal costs.
However, the buyers are required to pay the company NIS 118,706 for the delay, plus linkage and interest. The company's manager, Shlomo Buskila, claimed the buyers had requested to cancel the deal and agreed to waive the stipulated penalty, a claim the buyers denied, stating they only agreed to consider it and requested a written document.
Judge Levin noted that Buskila's testimony was uncorroborated and that the company's actions after the meeting did not align with a cancellation agreement. She pointed out that the company did not return the initial payment, did not inform the supervising bank, and did not report the cancellation to tax authorities. The court also found that the company failed to follow the contract's cancellation procedure, which requires written notice and a period for the buyer to rectify the breach.
Mentioned
