Lawsuit against Frisbee demanding replacement of defective Nissan vehicle with new vehicle

Attorney Eddie Blitstein filed a lawsuit against Frisbee (Carso Motors) demanding the replacement of a defective Nissan vehicle with a new vehicle. In addition to this lawsuit, Attorney Blitstein has filed numerous lawsuits against Frisbee regarding vehicles from various manufacturers regarding various defects.

You can read a lawsuit against Frisbee regarding a defective Nissan vehicle and a demand for its replacement later in this article.

When should you consider filing a lawsuit against Frisbee demanding a vehicle replacement?

There is a common denominator in almost every lawsuit against Frisbee filed by attorney Eddie Blitstein. In very many cases, Frisbee representatives claim that they cannot Provide spare parts Within the time periods specified in the Law on Licensing Services and Professions in the Automotive Industry (usually a period of 7 business days).

במקרים רבים הלקוח נדרש להמתין לחלקי חילוף שיגיעו מחו"ל במשך חודשים רבים מאוד, ובמקרה המתואר בכתב התביעה להלן הלקוחה המתינה עשרה חודשים עד שרכבה נמסר לה אחרי תיקון (כל הזמן הזה הרכב שהה במוסך).

In such cases, the customer may consider filing a lawsuit against Frisbee demanding To replace the vehicle with a new one or on demand To cancel a transaction for a vehicle purchased new.

Another case in which you can consider filing a lawsuit against Frisbee demanding a replacement vehicle is when the customer has broken down many times, and despite being repeatedly treated at the garage, the fault or faults have not been resolved.

The more serious the faults (for example, safety faults or faults that prevent the vehicle from being driven), the more well-founded the demand to replace the vehicle will be, and vice versa, the less serious the faults, the lower the likelihood that the court will grant the demand to replace the vehicle.

Lawsuit against Frisbee demanding replacement of a damaged Nissan vehicle

Regarding:

The plaintiff: שם ושם משפחה, ת"ז: __________________
רח' ____________; טל': __________________ באמצעות עוה"ד אדי בליטשטיין
13 Katznelson St., Ashkelon (Beit Yamin, Office 215) 
Tel: 03-6427876; Fax: 077-4704697;

N G D

Defendant: קרסו מוטורס בע"מ, ח.פ. 514065283
הסרן 1, בני עי"ש 6086000

Claim

Essence of the claim: Property damage – vehicle
Requested remedies: An order ordering the defendant to replace the vehicle with a new vehicle (and, to the extent that the same model is not available, with a new vehicle of another equivalent model) and financial compensation in a total amount of NIS 211,300. 
amount Court fee: 5,282.5 ש"ח (2,641.25 ש"ח במועד זה לפי תקנה 6(א) ופרט 1 לתקנות בתי המשפט (אגרות), תשס"ז -2007).
The existence of an additional procedure: ישנם מספר הליכים שעוסקים בסוגיות דומות שמנוהלים על ידי ב"כ התובעת: ת"א 1910-01-24 המתנהלת בבית משפט זה; ת"א 40569-07-25 המתנהלת בבית משפט השלום בקריות.

Summons

Since the plaintiff has filed this lawsuit against you, you are invited to file Statement of defense within sixty days From the date this invitation was presented to you.

Please note, if you do not submit Defense אזי לפי תקנה 130 לתקנות סדר הדין האזרחי, התשע"ט-2018, תהיה לתובעת הזכות לקבל A verdict not before you.

The emphasis in the statement of claim is not in the original unless otherwise noted.

A concise description of the litigants

1. התובעת היא אדם פרטי, משתייכת למגזר החרדי, שהחליטה לרכוש רכב מחברת ניו קאר ליס מוטורס בע"מ רכב Hybrid A luxurious Nissan X-Trail Tekna 7-seater Jeep (4X4), which cost a total of 264,490 NIS. This is a large vehicle designed to transport all of the plaintiff's family members (4 children and her husband). A hybrid vehicle was chosen out of a desire to significantly save on fuel costs.
2. הנתבעת היא "יבואן ישיר" (כהגדרת המונח בחוק רישוי שירותים ומקצועות בענף הרכב) של רכבי ניסאן לישראל, והיא זו שמספקת תיקונים במסגרת אחריות יצרן לרכב זה. הנתבעת גם מוכרת, נכון למועד הגשת תביעה זו, רכבים מדגם זהה.[1]

The reliefs requested in brief

• The Honorable Court is hereby requested to grant the plaintiff the following reliefs:
• צו המורה לנתבעת להחליף את רכבה של התובעת ברכב חדש מדגם זהה (הדבר אפשרי מכוח הגדרת "אחריות" בחוק רישוי שירותים ומקצועות בענף הרכב והפסיקה שתפורט להלן), וככל שבמועד מתן פסק הדין רכבים מדגם זהה לא ימכרו על ידי הנתבעת, צו המורה לנתבעת להחליף את רכבה של התובעת ברכב חדש אחר בעל מאפיינים דומים ושווי שלא יפחת משווי הרכב של התובעת.
• Alternatively, to the extent that the Honorable Court rejects the request to replace the plaintiff's vehicle with a new vehicle, it is hereby requested to order that compensation be paid to the plaintiff in the amount of NIS 120,000 in exchange for replacing the vehicle with a new one.
• Financial compensation in the amount of 50 thousand shekels for numerous visits to the garage and/or repairs to the plaintiff's vehicle over a period of 10 months, during which time the plaintiff's vehicle remained in the garage (contrary to the provisions of Section 48 of the Automotive Services and Professions Licensing Law). This caused the plaintiff great emotional distress and/or loss of enjoyment of her vehicle and/or annoyance and/or loss of time.
• Reimbursement of legal expenses incurred by the plaintiff, in the amount of NIS 41,300.
• To order the defendant to repair any defect in the vehicle subject to the claim, which is included in the manufacturer's warranty, as long as this claim continues, and until a final decision is made.
• Any other relief that the Honorable Court deems appropriate in the circumstances.

Summary of the facts necessary to establish the cause of action and when it arose

• The plaintiff belongs to the Haredi sector, a mother of 4 children, who needed a large and reliable vehicle for the family's needs.
• The plaintiff purchased a vehicle Hybrid prestigious (7 places) designed to serve her and her extended family.
• A Japanese vehicle (Nissan) was chosen with the idea that the vehicle would be reliable (in accordance with the reputation of Japanese vehicles), that it would not break down, and unfortunately, it would not break down much, and certainly would not break down in such a way that the vehicle would break down and/or many and/or essential parts would need to be replaced.
• Additionally, a hybrid vehicle was chosen with the intention of saving on fuel costs, which have risen significantly in recent years.
• Unfortunately for the plaintiff, the vehicle broke down many times, simply stopped working or was undriveable, and had to be taken to the garage (beyond routine maintenance), sometimes on a tow truck.
• The peak occurred on September 19, 2025, when the vehicle broke down once again, had to be towed to the garage, and remained in the garage for 10 consecutive months (!!), until July 29, 2026.
• On August 4, 2026, the vehicle returned to the garage again because the vehicle would not start. The vehicle was allegedly repaired and returned to the garage again on August 23, 2026 because it would not start again. At the time the claim was filed, the vehicle was still in the garage.
• On September 3, 2026, the plaintiff's husband, who always acted on behalf of the plaintiff with the defendant's representatives, demanded that the vehicle be replaced. The defendant's representative made it clear to the plaintiff that his demand was rejected because the defendant does not replace vehicles.
• Hence the lawsuit.

The facts that give the court jurisdiction

1. The Honorable Court has the authority to hear the claim in light of its nature, the amount of the claim, and the defendant's place of residence, in accordance with Regulation 7(a) of the Civil Procedure Regulations.

Details of the allegations

1. The plaintiff belongs to the Haredi sector, a mother of 4 children, who needed a large and reliable vehicle for the family's needs.
2. The plaintiff purchased a luxury hybrid vehicle (7 seats) intended to serve her and her extended family.
3. A Japanese vehicle (Nissan) was chosen with the idea that the vehicle would be reliable (in accordance with the reputation of Japanese vehicles), that it would not break down, and unfortunately, it would not break down much, and certainly would not break down in such a way that the vehicle would break down and/or many and/or essential parts would need to be replaced.
4. A hybrid vehicle was also chosen with the intention of saving on fuel costs, which have risen significantly in recent years. The vehicle purchased is a 7-seat Nissan X-Trail Tekna Jeep (4X4).
5. The plaintiff paid a total of 264,490 NIS for the vehicle. A not insignificant amount, by all accounts.
6. The defendant sells, as of the date of filing the lawsuit, an identical model at a price of 239,900 NIS.

Appendix 1: The vehicle license in the plaintiff's name and a screenshot from the Nissan website regarding the value of the Nissan X-Trail Tekna.

• As of the date the claim was filed, the vehicle is still under manufacturer's warranty.
• בתאריך 13.10.2024 הרכב שבק חיים בפעם הראשונה ולא הניע. במוסך אותרה מערכת "E Pawer" כבויה (נראה כי הכוונה למערכת E Power). בוצע "איפוס מחשבים ופרמטרים".
• בתאריך 23.12.2024 הרכב חזר למוסך אחרי ששוב הוא החל לעיתים לא להניע בתחילת נסיעה. במוסך אותרה "נורות אזהרה/תקלה דולקת". הפעם הוחלף מצבר (כפי שיפורט להלן, המצבר יוחלף בהמשך פעם נוספת), ובוצע טיפול תקופתי.
• On January 5, 2025, the vehicle returned to the garage again due to vibrations while driving. Several components in the vehicle were replaced and 4 wheels were balanced.
• On July 14, 2025, the vehicle returned to the garage again because it would not start intermittently. Computer programming was performed to manage the E Power engine, faults were reset, and several components in the vehicle were replaced.
• בתאריך 19.9.2025 בזמן נסיעה ליד היישוב רביד, בעלה של התובעת הבחין כי החל לצאת עשן רב מהרכב, והרכב התקשה בנסיעה. בעלה של התובעת עצר מיד בשולי הדרך והזמין גרר מטעם חברת הביטוח. מכיוון שה-19.9.2025 היה יום שישי, הגרר מטעם חברת הביטוח הוביל את הרכב לאחסנה במחסן, ובשבוע שלאחר מכן הוביל את הרכב על גבי גרר למוסך הנתבעת בפתח תקווה. במוסך בפתח תקווה סירבו לקבל את הרכב מפאת עומס עבודה, והרכב הועבר על גבי גרר למוסך הנתבעת בראשון לציון בתאריך 26.9.2025. בהיסטוריית הטיפולים אכן מתועד שהרכב הגיע על גבי גרר ושמספר הק"מ שהרכב נסע עד למועד הגעתו על גבי גרר היה 76,123 ק"מ.
• הרכב הועבר ביום 28.9.2025 על גבי גרר מהמוסך בראשון לציון למוסך הנתבעת בירושלים. כשהגיע הרכב למוסך בירושלים תועד שם שהרכב נסע עד למועד כניסתו למוסך בירושלים 76,500 ק"מ (מפורט בהיסטוריית הטיפולים לרכב). Apparently, at the defendant's garage in Rishon LeZion, they took test drives with the vehicle, without informing the plaintiff about it.
• The vehicle remained continuously in the defendant's garage in Jerusalem for 10 months, until July 29, 2026. This is a very unusual period of time, which drastically deviates from the provisions of Section 48 of the Law on Licensing Services and Professions in the Automotive Industry, which states that spare parts will be supplied within a maximum of 7 working days.
• כפי שהנתבעת טענה בהליכים אחרים בהם היה מעורב ב"כ התובעת, היא תטען בוודאי גם בהליך זה, שעקב מצב מלחמה ו/או כל תירוץ או המצאה אחרת, היא הייתה רשאית לספק את חלקי החילוף בהתאם לסעיף 48(ד) לחוק רישוי שירותים ומקצועות בענף הרכב, אשר קובע חריג, ותנאים כדי לעמוד בחריג זה (שבהם הנתבעת לא עמדה ולא תעמוד בהליך זה), המאפשר לנתבעת לספקי חלקי חילוף תוך עד 45 ימי עסקים at most, but even during this period of time, the defendant did not appear in this case.
• לביקורת על טענות מסוג זה של הנתבעת ראו ת"א 8177-02-23 דניס קופצ'ה נ' קרסו מוטורס בע"מ (Published in Nevo, 14.9.2025). The court there transferred Sharp criticism of the defendant's conduct (ראו ביקורת בעניין אי קיום הוראות סעיף 48 לחוק רישוי שירותים ומקצועות בענף הרכב גם בתאד"מ 65459-02-23 גיא הוכמן נ' קאר איסט יבוא רכב בע"מ (Published in Nevo, 26.3.25)).
• It is undisputed that repairing a vehicle for 10 months is a repair that lasts a clearly unreasonable period of time.
• בת"א 19906-02-13 Brom 58 Import and Marketing Agencies v. Alon Truck Garages (1992) (Published in Nevo, May 3, 2016) It is explicitly stated that a correction within an unreasonable period of time is grounds for canceling the transaction. Even if the vehicle owner was provided with a replacement vehicle:

" I do not believe that the 3rd defendant has proven that the truck was repaired within a reasonable time. Therefore, the plaintiff has the right to cancel the agreement due to non-conformity.Likewise, even if the claim were accepted that an agreement was proven between the parties regarding the repair of the truck by Defendant 3, during which the plaintiff would use a replacement truck, The plaintiff could still have canceled the purchase agreement, as the defendant exceeded the reasonable time to repair the truck.."

• If a repair within an unreasonable period of time is grounds for canceling a transaction, then we can learn from this that a less extreme remedy can be obtained, in the form of replacing the vehicle with a new vehicle under the manufacturer's warranty.
• According to the maintenance history, major body parts were replaced in the vehicle, including a generator motor, engine, charging motor, lithium-ion battery, gearbox and parts relevant to the vehicle's transmission, turbo assembly and parts relevant to the turbo, water pump, and many other parts.
• The number of parts replaced in the vehicle is extremely unusual and indicates a serious defect in the vehicle. Furthermore, the components mentioned in the service history are extremely important body parts for the proper operation of the vehicle.
• As stated, the vehicle was only released from the garage on July 29, 2026, after being in the garage for 10 months. About a month and a half after the vehicle entered the garage, the plaintiff was provided with a replacement vehicle, but not of the same model and not a hybrid vehicle, and therefore the plaintiff was forced to use a vehicle that she did not choose to purchase, a gasoline vehicle that resulted in much higher fuel expenses (first a small replacement vehicle with five seats was provided, and after a period of about two months another replacement vehicle with seven seats was provided, but again, not of the same model purchased by the plaintiff and not a hybrid).
• יודגש, הנתבעת לא ביצעה מחווה כלשהי לפנים משורת הדין באספקת רכב חלופי, אלא זו הייתה חובת בנסיבות העניין. בעניין זה ראו: בתאד"מ 65459-02-23 גיא הוכמן נ' קאר איסט יבוא רכב בע"מ (Published in Nevo, 26.3.25):

"Defendant 1 could have suggested to the plaintiff to cancel the agreement. Signed between the parties in light of the fact that it was unable to import the parts required to repair the vehicle that was in the garage. A significant period of 5 months, which, as stated, exceeds the maximum time stipulated in the Licensing Law.. If it had not done so, it would have had the minimum obligation to provide the plaintiff with a replacement vehicle so that he could use it to get around during the period in which he was prevented from using his vehicle due to the malfunction. The mere raising of the argument regarding the lack of an obligation to provide a replacement vehicle during the repair period – for which no end date has been set and which does not involve a few days – arouses a considerable sense of discomfort.."

• The vehicle did not start again on August 4, 2026 (just days after being released from a 10-month repair) and returned to the garage, where the battery was replaced (it should be noted that the battery was also replaced during a visit to the garage on December 23, 2024).
• בתאריך 23.8.2026 הרכב שוב התקלקל. במהלך הנסיעה התקבלה הודעה "כוח מנוע מופחת" (בהיסטוריית הטיפולים אף תועד "מנורת אזהרה") ולא ניתן היה להמשיך בנסיעה בצורה תקינה. הרכב הוחזר למוסך והוא נמצא במוסך גם במועד הגשת התביעה (גם הפעם הנתבעת חורגת מפרק הזמן לאספקת חלקי חילוף תוך 7 ימי עסקים, בהתאם להוראות סעיף 48 לחוק רישוי שירותים ומקצועות בענף הרכב).

Appendix 2: The vehicle's maintenance history - updated to September 1, 2026.

• The number of malfunctions, the many visits to the garage, the many repairs, and the number of parts replaced in the vehicle, indicate serious defects in the vehicle that justify replacing it with a new vehicle. Unfortunately, this is a defect or defects in the vehicle that the defendant simply cannot repair (whether due to a lack of relevant knowledge or negligence on the part of its representatives).
• On September 3, 2026, the plaintiff's husband contacted the defendant's customer service and requested a replacement vehicle. His request was rejected by the defendant's representative.

Appendix 3: The plaintiff's husband's request to the defendant regarding the replacement of the vehicle, and the response of the defendant's representative.

• לנוכח העובדה שהנתבעת סירבה להחליף את הרכב, כחובתה מכוח הגדרת "אחריות" בחוק רישוי שירותים ומקצועות בענף הרכב, התובעת נאלצה לשכור את שירותיו של בא כוחה לצורך ניהול תביעה זו, ולשם כך שילמה שכר טרחה בסך 41,300 ₪ כולל מע"מ. התובעת זכאית לקבל החזר מלא של שכר הטרחה ששילמה לבא כוחה.

Appendix 4: A tax invoice indicating payment of fees of NIS 41,300.

Replacing the vehicle under the Automotive Services and Professions Licensing Law

• First, the purpose of the law must be known:

The purpose of this law is to regulate services in the automotive industry, including in the field of imports, To ensure all of this: an appropriate professional level of service providers, maintaining vehicle safety, protecting public peace and safety, Providing regular and available service to service recipients, the existence of appropriate conditions at the places where services are provided, the promotion of competition in the automotive industry and consumer protectionן."

• From the purpose of the law, it can be understood that repeated vehicle malfunctions and/or the repair of the vehicle within a period of 10 months, when the vehicle is continuously in the garage, are not consistent with the purposes of the law.
• Consumer protection cannot be expressed in requiring the vehicle owner to repeatedly go to the garage for repeated repairs, which also take unreasonable periods of time.
• חוק זה מגדיר גם מהי "אחריות":

" "אחריות" – מתן שירות, בלא תשלום, לאחר מכירת רכב או מוצר תעבורה, הכולל תיקון, טיפול or replacement of the vehicle or of a transport product, to ensure their integrity;"

• בהליכים מקבילים אותם מנהל ב"כ התובעת, הנתבעת התכחשה בכל תוקף לחובתה להחליף רכבים מכוח הגדרת אחריות בחוק, ותמיד הסתמכה על תעודת האחריות (שלא נמסרה במקרה דנן לתובעת), בה היא מתחייבת לתקן רכבים.
• Here you go, The warranty certificate is not a certificate of exemption from liability and certainly does not override the provisions of the law.. הדבר בא לידי ביטוי בפסקי דין רבים. ראו לדוגמה ת"א 25791-02-13 הילאנה בחוס נ' צ'מפיון מוטורס בע"מ (Published in Nevo, July 31, 2017):

"בטרם ניזקק לדיון במחלוקות שנתחמו לעיל, מצאתי לשים לנגד עינינו את המובן מאליו, כי תעודת האחריות אינה מתקיימת בפני עצמה, כי אם היא מהווה חלק מכלל תנאי הסכם רכישת הרכבThis is not the case either. The warranty certificate, as its name suggests, is supposed to provide the defendant's customers with a warranty for the product sold, and is not intended to provide the defendant with an exemption from its existing liability under the law.."

• באופן דומה נקבע גם במסגרת ת"א 10560/05 Galit Skobronic v. AUDI AG (Published in Nevo, January 6, 2008):

"The warranty certificate is not a certificate of non-responsibility, And it is intended to improve the situation of the purchaser and not to worsen it, and thus the case should be."

• כך גם במסגרת ת"א 54520-11-22 אליהו כהן נ' דוד לובינסקי בע"מ (Published in Nevo, February 26, 2024):

"בשלב זה יש להתייחס אל טענת הנתבעת לפיה בהתאם לכתב השירות והאחריות של הרכב אין היא אחראית לנזקים עקיפים שנגרמו לתובע, כאשר בסעיף 6 לטופס ההזמנה – עליו חתם – אישר התובע כי העתק כתב האחריות הועבר לעיונו וכי הוא מסכים לתנאים הנזכרים בו.

עיון בכתב האחריות והשירות מעלה כי תחת הכותרת – "האחריות החוזית אינה מכסה", מוחרגת בין היתר – "כל עלות אחרת שאינה מכוסה במפורש באחריות זו ובפרט עלויות שנגרמו כתוצאה מהשבתת הרכב כגון עגמת נפש או אבדן השימוש".

Despite the above, the warranty letter does not exempt the defendant from compensating the plaintiff for his damages, since, as explained above, this is an obligation that does not arise from the warranty letter but from the law, and the fact that the warranty letter excludes these damages from the coverage specified therein does not affect the defendant's liability under the law.."

A repair that lasts for long periods of time entitles the plaintiff to a replacement vehicle.

• As a reminder, the plaintiff's vehicle was in the defendant's garage for 10 consecutive months. Even if we ignore all previous visits, this defect, in itself, entitles the plaintiff to have the vehicle replaced, also in light of the fact that many body parts were replaced in her vehicle.
• ראו לדוגמה: ת"א 18449/99 שמואל מור נ' דוד לובינסקי בע"מ (Published in Nevo, December 1, 2002):

"אין ספק, כי הקונה רכב חדש זכאי לכך שיהא תקין ותואם למצבו של רכב חדש, וכי כל תקלה שאינה נגרמת באשמו וברשלנותו תתוקן בתוך תקופת האחריות ע"י החברה המוכרת, וכי בגין פגם מהותי שאינו ניתן לתיקון ושאינו נגרם באשמו וברשלנותו של הקונה – זכאי הקונה לקבלת New replacement car or to provide a transaction cancellation notice – בשל אי התאמה יסודית – הניתנת על ידו מייד עם התגלות הליקוי המהותי האמור, או תוך זמן סביר מהתגלותו, וכאשר הליקוי אינו מטופל ע"י החברה המוכרת. נטל הוכחת אי התאמה כזו – מוטל על כתפי הטוען לקיומה."

• דוגמה נוספת – ת"א 32915-06-16 ענבר חקלאות בע"מ נ' יוניון מוטורס בע"מ (Published in Nevo, August 7, 2019):

"על-פי Article 11 The Law of Sale, When the property or service does not correspond to the agreed description or to the normal needs and uses for which the service is intended or to special needs and uses, if such are implied by the agreement, A claim of incompatibility arose..

"…לא בכל מקרה של התגלות פגם ברכב יהא על המוכרת/היבואנית להחליף את הרכב לקונה, אלא עליה לטפל בפגם ולפעול לתיקונו ולהסרתוHowever, if the defect has not been removed Or if the defect is substantial, then the buyer will be Entitled to cancel the transaction Or return the vehicle and receive a new vehicle in its place."

• כך גם במסגרת ת"א 48828/98 אדיר הבירה בע"מ נ' יוניברסל מוטורס בע"מ (Published in Nevo, June 19, 2002):

"גם בהתגלות פגם או ליקוי כאמור, וגם אם מדובר בכאלה שלא הקונה גרמם, בזדון או ברשלנות, אין משמעות הדבר שעל הנתבעת להחליף לקונה את המכונית, אלא עליה לתקן ולטפל באבחון הליקוי ובהסרתו, And only if this is not possible, or if it is a fundamental and chronic defect that constitutes a current and future incompatibility with the car – only then The buyer is entitled to cancel the transaction and receive a refund or a new car in exchange..

…

לא יכולה להיות מחלוקת כי מדובר בכמות פניות וטיפולים שאינה סבירה לרכב חדש. כפי שנפסק בת"א (שלום חיפה) 10560/05 Skobronic N' Audi AG (6.1.2008) "כאשר החברה, שהיא יבואנית הרכב בעלת המוסכים המורשים המרכזיים לטיפול ברכב אינה מצליחה לתקן את הליקוי, She cannot expect the matter to end with her being given another opportunity to make amends. A person who has bought a new vehicle, especially an expensive one like the one in question, is entitled to a new vehicle without faults, or with faults that are repaired immediately upon discovery."

…

Regarding the need for a new vehicle purchaser to frequently report to the garage due to malfunctions, it has often been determined that One of the goals of purchasing a new vehicle is to avoid frequent garage maintenance., And it is legitimate and reasonable to expect that a new vehicle purchased from a company will not require its owner to repeatedly go to the garage to repair faults.."

• בעניין זה ראו גם ת"א 19906-02-13 Brom 58 Import and Marketing Agencies v. Alon Truck Garages (1992) (Published in Nevo, May 3, 2016) quoted above.

Replacing many essential parts in a vehicle allows you to demand the cancellation of the deal or replacement of the vehicle.

• As mentioned, a review of the vehicle's maintenance history will reveal that during the visit on September 28, 2025, many significant body parts were replaced in the vehicle, including the engine, turbo, battery (this is a hybrid vehicle), generator, gearbox, and more.
• The ruling recognized that replacing essential vehicle parts is grounds for canceling a transaction, Even without charging appropriate usage fees or any reduction in the value of the amount that must be returned to the vehicle owner.. דרישתה של התובעת מתמקדת בסעד של החלפת הרכב בחדש, שלא רק אינו חריג כסעד של ביטול עסקה, אלא מדובר בסעד שקבוע בצורה מפורשת בהגדרת "אחריות", ממנה מתעלמת הנתבעת באופן מופגן במקרה זה ובתביעות נוספות שמנהל ב"כ התובעת כנגד הנתבעת.
• בעניין האפשרות לדרוש את ביטולה של העסקה בעת החלפת חלקי מרכב מהותיים, מבלי להפחית מסכום ההשבה דבר, ראו לדוגמה נקבע במסגרת ת"א 38239-11-15 אריאלה סער נ' צ'מפיון מוטורס בע"מ (Published in Nevo, 17.12.2018):

"הפגם במנוע, היה פגם מהותי כפי שניתן ללמוד מהצורך בהחלפתו במנוע אחר, דבר המחזק את קביעתי והתרשמותי For non-conformity of the vehicle when sold in accordance with the limits of non-conformity in section 11 (3) בLaw of Sale.

…

The non-conformity means a fundamental breach of the agreement and the remedies available to the plaintiff, both by virtue of Contract Law (Remedies for Breach of Contract) תשל"א- 1970 (להלן-"חוק חוזים תרופות").

…

From all of the above, it follows that replacing the engine had an impact on the value of the vehicle, In its commercial decline.

…

אוסיף ואומר כי אין בהיעדר תקלות ברכב ממועד החלפת המנוע הפגום ועד היום כדי לאיין את ירידת הערך שהשתכנעתי כי נגרמה בהחלפת המנוע. הוכח אמנם כי המנוע השני תקין אך אינו דומה הרכב שבפני לאחר הרכבת המנוע השני, ומהכלולים, לרכב ככל שכל חלקיו היו מורכבים ע"י היצרן. לכך מתווסף עניין רישום החלפת המנוע ברישיון הרכב and the duty to inform a potential buyer about the engine, which may deter a buyer from purchasing the vehicle from the plaintiff one day. (תא (ת"א) 113104/99‏ ‏ בר אבי יורם נ' ג' בי מכוניות איכות בע"מ, [Published in Nevo], 11.2.02).

…

In these circumstances, when a discrepancy was discovered in the vehicle that constitutes a fundamental violation as defined In section 6 According to the Pharmaceutical Contracts Law, the plaintiff has the right to cancel the agreement in accordance with To Article 7 To the law.... Likewise, replacing the engine would have resulted in a decrease in the value of the vehicle. And the plaintiff should not be prevented from exercising her right under the agreement to notify its cancellation. and oblige her to replace the engine, as the defendant demanded of her. Even if the latter did not know about the defect, it passes to the acquaintance (רת"ק 9966-05-09 Raphael Alfasi v. Leonard Goldberg et al., [Published in Nevo], 28.6.09).

…

In light of my determination regarding the lawful cancellation of the agreement, the plaintiff has the right to a refund of the consideration according to Article 9 Pharmaceutical Contracts Law And according to section 5.3 of the agreement. Refund, i.e.: according to the consideration paid for the vehicle ומבלי "לזקוף לחובת התובע את ההפרש בין שווי הרכב ביום המכירה לבין שוויו ביום

The return (Cell 34587/04/12  בועז אלדר נ' מכשירי תנועה ומכוניות (2004) בע"מ, [פורסם בנבו] , 10.12.15 , פסקה 41 , שאושר בבית משפט המחוזי בע"א 46200/01/16 תנועה ומכוניות (2004) בע"מ N. Boaz Eldar, [published in Nevo] paragraph 44).

לפיכך אני מורה לנתבעת להשיב לתובעת את התמורה בתוספת הפרשי הצמדה וריבית כחוק ממועד הודעת ביטול ההסכם ועד מועד התשלום בפועל ובכפוף להשבת הרכב לנתבעת. "

• As stated above, if the plaintiff was entitled to demand the cancellation of the transaction in the circumstances in question, then she is entitled to demand, in lieu of canceling the transaction, the remedy of replacing the vehicle with a new one.

Compensation to the plaintiff for repeated visits to the garage

• A review of the maintenance history will reveal that the plaintiff's vehicle was forced to return to the garage repeatedly, sometimes on a tow truck, sometimes just days after being released from the garage due to a previous repair.
• A person who purchases a new vehicle does so in order to avoid frequent visits to the garage. This issue has also been recognized in many court rulings. In the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff is seeking financial compensation for the mental anguish she suffered and/or loss of enjoyment of her vehicle and/or inconvenience and/or loss of time, in the amount of 50,000 shekels.
• פסקי דין התומכים בדרישה לגיטימית זו של התובעת ראו לדוגמה ת"א 2449/07 שלמה אנג'ל נ' צ'מפיון מוטורס (ישראל) בע"מ (Published in Nevo, June 9, 2011):

"I believe that, in the circumstances of the case and based on the evidence presented to the court, the testimony of the plaintiff and his wife, the opinion on behalf of the defendant, and the defendant's books In which frequent and numerous repairs are documented relative to what is expected of a new vehicle, including unusual and unusual repairs, As well as the defendant's agreement to extend the warranty period on the vehicle - applies Subsection (3) of Article 11 The Law of Sale, namely: the vehicle does not have the quality or features necessary for the normal use of the property.

One of the goals of purchasing a new vehicle is to avoid frequent garage services, except as required by the manufacturer's instructions. This is a reasonable and legitimate expectation of a vehicle purchaser and deserves legal protection. (See also Cell (Y-M) 9670/00 מילר נ' יוניון מוטורוס בע"מ, [פורסם בנבו] כב' הש' ד"ר אגמון-גונן מיום 10/11/05).

…

A person who purchases a new vehicle does so, among other things, in order to drive safely without needing frequent visits to the garage for repairs, certainly in the first year of the vehicle's life.

…

...The plaintiff was indeed caused significant emotional distress and I set the compensation for emotional distress at a total of NIS 50,000 as of the date the claim was filed."

• דוגמה נוספת: ת"א 9670/00 יהודה יואל מילר נ' יוניון מוטורס בע"מ (Published in Nevo, 10.11.2005):

" בית המשפט רשאי לקבוע לתובע פיצויים בגין עוגמת נפש, אשר יקבעו בשיעור הנראה סביר בנסיבות העניין. Among other things, the ruling emphasized the importance of the loss of pleasure and disappointment caused to the plaintiff, and for these, the court may also compensate the plaintiff as mental anguish. (ע"א 82/85 כהן נ' כורי פ"ד מא(2), 778; ע"א 430/79 בנישתי נ' ששון פ"ד לה (2), 400).
…
It should be noted that this is a new vehicle, and it is precisely this behavior, of frequent visits to the garage, that a person purchasing a new vehicle seeks to avoid. This legitimate hope and expectation did not succeed.
…
If Union Motors had taken responsibility for a new vehicle in which new serious faults were discovered frequently, and had replaced the vehicle for the plaintiff at the time, the whole matter would have been avoided.
…
In light of the above, I determine the amount of compensation for emotional distress, for which the defendant is liable to the plaintiff, at NIS 50,000. 

63. Examples of additional court rulings in which tens of thousands of shekels were awarded for Mental anguish and/or loss of pleasure and/or annoyance and/or loss of time: ת"א 20011-04-11 אפרת שהם דליות נ' צ'מפיון מוטורס בע"מ (פורסם בנבו, 25.10.2012); ת"א 3158/06 בסטוני חסאן נ' צ'מפיון מוטורס ישראל בע"מ (פורסם בנבו, 8.2.2010); ת"א 50525-11-12 חנה שנהב נ' צ'מפיון מוטורס בע"מ (פורסם בנבו, 11.5.2015); ת"א 10081/00 אברהמי עליזה נ' מכשירי תנועה בע"מ (פורסם בנבו, 19.5.2002); ת"א 10514/04 קורפין השקעות בע"מ נ' דוד לובינסקי בע"מ (פורסם בנבו, 4.9.2005); ת"א 59005/00 צהלה חסון נ' חברת המזרח לשיווק מכוניות (1994) בע"מ (פורסם בנבו, 11.12.2001); תא"מ 11127-08-18 אייל קראוס נ' צ'מפיון מוטורס בע"מ (Published in Nevo, 7.5.2019).

In conclusion

• In light of all of the above, the Honorable Court is hereby requested to summon the defendant to a hearing before it and to rule as follows:
• the remedies detailed in this statement of claim.
• לחייב את הנתבעת בתשלום הוצאות משפט ושכר טרחת עו"ד בתוספת מע"מ (כמפורט לעיל).
• To grant any other relief that the Honorable Court deems appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

_______________
עו"ד אדי בליטשטיין
ב"כ התובעת

---

[1] https://www.nissan.co.il/vehicles/new/x-trail.html