Defects at the time of delivery
- Buying an apartment in Israel
- Contract Structure
Chronologically delivery of possession of the apartment is carried out after the signing of the contract. Therefore, it is natural that the condition of the apartment at the time of delivery will not be the same as the condition of the apartment at the time of signing the contract of sale.
The contract usually states that the apartment will be delivered in its condition as it is at the time of signing, subject to normal and reasonable wear and tear that occurred between these two dates. Behind this diplomatic wording lies the danger that the buyer will be disappointed when he receives possession of the apartment. If the heating element breaks down or an air conditioner motor breaks down or even the water system does not work due to natural wear and tear, it is the buyer’s responsibility to repair them.
Despite this rule, it should be specified how the exact items in the apartment are delivered, for example, regarding the garden, it should be noted that the seller will continue to water, care for and nurture the garden. Regarding the air conditioner, the seller will continue to perform routine treatments on the air conditioner, as well as on the elevator or any other system.
A provision may be made in the sale agreement that even if reasonable wear and tear cause one of the apartment systems to fail, the seller will be responsible for repairing it.
Thus, if the power supply or heating element in the boiler has stopped working – the seller will have to repair them. You can also conclude that the apartment is sold as-is.
Regarding defects in the apartment, various guidelines can be set out in the contract of sale.
Distinguishing between a hidden defect that the parties did not know about at the time of signing the contract and a hidden defect that the seller knew about but the buyer did not.
As to a visible defect that the buyer did not stand for due to his health limitation, the Supreme Court ruled that although the respondent’s visual limitations were very unfortunate, a visible defect on his face does not become hidden for this reason.
As long as the opposing party did not take advantage of this in bad faith and did not try to present the real situation in a distorted way, in terms of placing an obstacle in front of a blind person.
In fact, the respondent’s visual limitations required her to have an additional keen eye, which would accompany her when she was about to close a real estate transaction, and since she did not do so, she has none to blame but herself.