תביעה נגד דוד לובינסקי בע"מ – מה קובעת פסיקת בית המשפט?

In what cases can a lawsuit be filed against David Lubinsky?

תביעה נגד דוד לובינסקי בע"מ אפשר להגיש לאחר רכישת רכב חדש או משומש. Lubinsky Group It is one of the largest car importers in Israel and is engaged in importing new vehicles from Peugeot, Opel, Citroen, MG, DS. In addition, Lubinsky Group is active in the trade-in market (used vehicles), and even in the insurance market.

In light of the group's extensive activity, and the large number of automobile manufacturers it represents in Israel, this group has a very high number of customers who purchase new and used vehicles from it. As a result, there is also a significant number of customers who encounter various problems that sometimes require filing lawsuits in court.

חשוב להבין שעצם העובדה שמגישים תביעות נגד קבוצת לובינסקי אין משמעות הדבר שמדובר ביבואן רכב "בעייתי", אלא ככל חברה גדולה אחרת, ככל שיש לקוחות רבים יותר, כך מטבע הדברים יש גם מספר תלונות/תביעות גבוה יותר. במקרים אלה צריכים לדעת כיצד להתנהל מול החברה בצורה נכונה ואילו טיעונים לטעון כדי לנצח בבית המשפט.

Lawsuit against David Lubinsky demanding cancellation of new car deal

Can be submitted כתב תביעה נגד דוד לובינסקי בע"מ In a demand to order Canceling a new car transaction. כאשר לקוח רוכש רכב חדש הוא מצפה לא להגיע שוב ושוב למוסך או "להתקע" במוסך במשך תקופה ארוכה מאוד (חודשים).

In these cases, you can file a lawsuit against Lubinsky even if you have owned the vehicle for over a year.

סוגיה זו נדונה במסגרת ת"א 54520-11-22 אליהו כהן נ' דוד לובינסקי בע"מ, שם נקבע בין היתר, כך:

Even if there was no express contractual obligation to provide the plaintiff with a replacement vehicle, in my opinion there was התובע זכאי לבטל את החוזה מאחר שרכבו היה במצב של "אי התאמה" לפי סעיף 11 לחוק המכר, שכן אחד השיקולים המרכזיים העומדים לנגד עיני רוכש רכב חדש היא העובדה שמצופה כי רכב כזה כמעט שלא יסבול מליקויים – וודאי שלא כאלה שישביתו אותו לחלוטין משימוש לתקופה ארוכה – וכפי שנהוג לומר בלשון עממית "לא יראה מוסך" במשך פרק זמן לא מבוטל לאחר רכישתו.

At the same time, the fact that vehicle importers and manufacturers provide a warranty for vehicles for a significant period of time – in our case, for 3 years from the date of delivery (Appendix 2 to the letter of defense) – is based, among other things, on this assumption.

It is unlikely that a new vehicle would suffer a failure so significant that it would be completely out of service for such a long period of time, about a year and a half after it was received. וכאשר אין צפי מוגדר לתיקון התקלה שנמצאה בו, שלא נטען כי נובעת מאופן השימוש בו על ידי התובע, ומצב כזה עולה – לטעמי – כדי "אי התאמה" (ולעניין זה ראו למשל ע"א (מרכז) 48152-09-19‏ יוסף פרשה נ' ש.י.ר. – שלמה יבוא רכב בע"מ (16.1.2020) פסקה 11; ת"א (שלו חיפה) 10560/05 Skobronic Galit v. AUDI AG (6.1.2008) end of paragraph 4 and more).

Under these circumstances, in a situation where the defendant took the vehicle for repair and did not agree to the cancellation of the contract – a position that doubted whether it had a legal basis at the time – It had the minimum obligation to provide the plaintiff with a replacement vehicle so that he could get around during the period in which he was prevented from using his vehicle due to the malfunction, since non-consent to cancel the contract obliges the defendant to fulfill it in the sense of ensuring that the plaintiff has an available and working vehicle.

The defendant's insistence on refusing to cancel the contract while simultaneously raising the claim regarding the lack of an obligation to supply 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.

Please note that in a lawsuit against Lubinsky, the court ruled that the company is obligated to provide a replacement vehicle if it fails to repair the vehicle and does not agree to the demand to cancel the transaction.

Can the Corona crisis or a state of war exempt the Lubinsky Company from its debts?

One of the claims that may arise in a lawsuit against Lubinsky or Lawsuits against car importers Others are that due to the Corona crisis or a state of war, the vehicle can be repaired for several months without compensating the customer.

This approach was not accepted in the case law. The aforementioned ruling stated in this regard as follows:

The general claims regarding the Corona crisis and its severe impact on the production and supply chain of automotive spare parts, which created a global crisis in the industry, and the shortage of lithium due to the war in Ukraine. Do not amount to proof required under Section 48(d) of the Law, since no evidence was provided linking these global events – which are not in dispute – to the case at hand, given that this is a crisis that broke out in early 2020 and the defendant had a long time to understand its effects and try to prepare for them until the events that are the subject of this lawsuit, but no evidence was presented regarding such actions on its part.

Neither, the defendant did not show that this is indeed such a rare fault that it is not necessary for it to keep a stock – even a minimal one – of spare parts in its warehouses, and not necessarily for the purpose of handling this specific fault, but rather for the purpose of an ongoing response to battery faults, so that not every fault that requires replacing the battery will result in the malfunctioning vehicle being shut down for such a significant period of time.

This is a prolonged period during which, as stated, the plaintiff was prevented from using the new, luxurious vehicle he purchased from the defendant, and since she was unable to make a repair within the time prescribed by law, she had to - at the very least - provide the plaintiff with a replacement of a similar standard to that of his vehicle.

Is it possible to file a lawsuit against Lubinsky despite the exemption in the warranty certificate?

גם במסגרת תביעה נגד דוד לובינסקי בע"מ וגם במסגרת תביעות נגד יבואני רכב אחרים עולה לרוב הטענה שלא ניתן לקבל מהן פיצוי כספי בגין עוגמת נפש או נזקים עקיפים משום שבתעודת האחריות של יבואני הרכב כתוב שיבואן הרכב אינו אחראי לנזקים אלה.

In this matter too, the court's ruling does not accept the position of the vehicle importers, including Lubinsky's position, as expressed in the aforementioned ruling:

At this stage, we must address the defendant's claim that, according to the vehicle's service and warranty document, it is not responsible for indirect damages caused to the plaintiff, when in section 6 of the order form - which he signed - the plaintiff confirmed that a copy of the warranty document was forwarded to him for review and that he agrees to the terms mentioned therein.

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 aforementioned, 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.

In conclusion

The Lubinsky Group is one of the largest car importers in the country, and it sells new and used vehicles.

It is possible to file a lawsuit against Lubinsky and, in some cases, even demand the cancellation of a new vehicle transaction even if more than a year has passed since the date of receipt.

Additionally, financial compensation can be claimed as part of a lawsuit against Lubinsky if the customer was not provided with a replacement vehicle if their vehicle was in the garage for a long period of time.

It is always a good idea to consult with an automotive lawyer in any lawsuit against a vehicle importer or Lawsuit against a car dealer.