Contractor Must Pay Buyer NIS 134,000 for 21-Month Apartment Delay
Translated & summarized from Mako by baba
A Tel Aviv court ordered a developer to pay a buyer NIS 134,188 for a 21-month delay in delivering an apartment. The delay was primarily due to the building not receiving its occupancy permit (Form 4) until December 2020, despite the contract stipulating delivery only after its issuance. The developer's appeal was rejected, and the company was also ordered to pay NIS 15,000 in legal costs.
The story in 5 lines · by baba
- Developer Ovi Hakora Megurim must pay NIS 134,188 for a 21-month apartment delivery delay.
- The Tel Aviv District Court rejected the developer's appeal against the compensation order.
- The apartment's occupancy permit (Form 4) was received 21 months after the original delivery date.
- Contractual compensation for the delay was deemed insufficient and legally invalid.
- The developer was ordered to pay an additional NIS 15,000 in legal costs.
The Tel Aviv District Court has rejected an appeal by the development company Ovi Hakora Megurim, upholding a lower court's decision that the company must pay a buyer NIS 134,188 due to a 21-month delay in delivering her apartment. The apartment, part of a Tama 38 urban renewal project in Tel Aviv, was originally slated for delivery in March 2019 but was only handed over in January 2021, after the building received its occupancy permit (Form 4) in December 2020.
The buyer, who does not speak Hebrew and was represented by her son, had sued for NIS 174,335, including NIS 157,500 for the delay, NIS 15,000 for distress, and NIS 2,335 for notary expenses. The developer argued that the delay was caused by the buyer's requested modifications and that the contract allowed for extensions. However, the court found that the contract stipulated delivery only after receiving Form 4, which was significantly delayed.
In its appeal, the company raised several arguments, including that the lower court improperly admitted evidence and that the lawsuit's focus on delay constituted an expansion of the claim. The company also claimed the buyer's son was merely an agent and lacked the right to sue. The court dismissed these claims, noting that the buyer's son had a power of attorney and that the developer had dealt with him throughout the transaction. The court also rejected the argument that the buyer hadn't paid the balance, stating that payments were contingent on receiving Form 4.
Presiding Judge Avigail Cohen stated that the lower court's ruling was detailed and well-reasoned, based on factual findings and credibility assessments, which appellate courts rarely overturn. She emphasized that the occupancy permit is a crucial requirement for delivery according to the contract and that contractual clauses offering less compensation than mandated by law are invalid if they disadvantage the buyer. The court ordered the company to pay an additional NIS 15,000 in legal costs and fees, and the NIS 134,188 compensation was upheld, significantly exceeding the contractual compensation rate.
The same event, reported separately by each outlet. Open a few to compare what different newsrooms emphasize — and what they leave out.
Coverage from Mako
Not the same event — other stories that share this one’s people, places, or theme: background, reactions, and follow-ups.
