Bought an apartment and regretted it after half a year: "They hid leaks and rust in the walls"
Apartment buyers signed the contract after several visits to the property, but then discovered a number of defects and sued for 350,000 shekels. The buyers claimed they did not know about them. What did the judge rule and what can be learned from this case?
How many times have you encountered a situation where a couple who visited your home wanted to buy the apartment, submitted a price offer, but decided to back out just before signing the contract? And what happens if the decision is made after the contract is signed—are there grounds for a lawsuit, and how strict are the courts on this matter?
The courts are full of such lawsuits, especially disputes between buyers and contractors. In this case, buyers of an old house in Beit Shean, built in the 1970s, recently backed out of a second-hand deal, but with one significant difference: it happened about half a year after the contract was signed. Their main claim was that they discovered defects in the apartment, which they argued constituted a breach of contract by the sellers. The Magistrate's Court in Afula heard the case to determine if claims of defects in the walls and under the flooring are sufficient grounds for contract cancellation.
The house was purchased by the sellers about 20 years ago, and the agreement with the plaintiffs was signed four and a half years ago. According to the contract, the property was in good condition, without flaws, dampness, or leaks. After the purchase, during renovations carried out by the buyers, they claimed to have discovered dampness, leaks, and electrical system issues. They demanded that the sellers pay expenses totaling 357,000 shekels or the contractually agreed compensation of 100,000 shekels. The sellers maintained that they disclosed everything they knew about the house, noting that the buyer, a handyman, had conducted a thorough inspection of the property before the transaction.
The judge noted: "The plaintiffs sought to base their lawsuit on an expert opinion, but it was proven that the repairs had already been completed. The plaintiffs are obligated to prove actual costs rather than relying on estimates. Furthermore, it was proven that the plaintiff performed most of the renovation himself, using foreign workers without invoices. Therefore, even assuming the existence of defects, the plaintiffs failed to provide relevant evidence and documentation regarding the cost of repairs."
Regarding the issue of dampness, the judge added: "The plaintiffs claimed that after removing the plaster, they found rust on the iron inside the concrete columns. However, their own expert could not confirm that the iron was damaged by dampness and only recommended further testing. In such a situation, the plaintiffs failed to prove damage to the beams and columns."
Judge Wissam Khir noted that the plaintiffs visited the apartment five times, checked it carefully, and found it to be in good condition. "The defects were located under the flooring, under the plaster, or inside the walls, which rules out negligence on the part of the seller," the judge concluded. He added that the property is old, so the plaintiffs' expectation of receiving a house in "new" condition is unreasonable, and the timing of the lawsuit, half a year after moving in, was suspicious. The court ordered the plaintiffs to pay 15,000 shekels.
