A lawsuit against a vehicle leasing company and Carasso Motors – example

Here is a lawsuit against a vehicle leasing company and against Carso Motors Company Which provided a warranty for the new car received from the leasing company.

In the case in question, it is a new model vehicle. Chery Tiggo 7 Pro After about 7 months, it suffered a malfunction that required the Replacing the engine in a car (And later other faults). Replacing an engine in a new vehicle is a good reason to demand the Cancellation of the new vehicle deal, whether the vehicle was purchased from the importer or whether the vehicle was received as part of a leasing transaction.

The cancellation of the transaction can be requested even though the vehicle has been in use for a considerable period of time, and even if the vehicle has actually traveled thousands and tens of thousands of kilometers. In this regard, a lawsuit against a vehicle leasing company is no different from any other. Lawsuit against a car importer.

It is important to act correctly and first send a written notice regarding the cancellation of the transaction (you can demand both the replacement of the vehicle with a new one from the leasing company and from the vehicle importer who actually provides the warranty).

In addition, it is very worthwhile to use the services of Car Claims Lawyer Who is knowledgeable about these issues. This is a legal field in which it is important to be familiar with the relevant case law and legislation, which not every lawyer is familiar with.

A lawsuit against a leasing company and a car importer

Regarding:

The plaintiffs: 1. שם התובע, ת"ז: ______
2. שם התובע, ת"ז: ____________
Address __________, Tel: _______________ 
ע"י עוה"ד אדי בליטשטיין (מ.ר. 60023)
13 HaHagana St., Rishon LeZion (Yaron Miller Tower, Office 501) 
Tel: 03-6427876; Fax: 077-4704697;

N G D

Defendants: 1. הדס מ.ש. חברה לרכב בע"מ, ח.פ. 512969387
1 Eucalyptus Trail St., Yagur 3006500 
2. קרסו מוטורס בע"מ, ח.פ. 514065283
רח' הסרן 1, בני עי"ש 6086000

Claim

Essence of the claim:  Property damage – vehicle. 
Requested remedies: ביטול עסקה או החלפת הרכב בחדש, תשלום כספי בסך _________ ש"ח .
Court fee amount: __________ ש"ח (_________ ש"ח במועד זה לפי תקנה 6(א) ופרט 1 לתקנות בתי המשפט (אגרות), תשס"ז -2007).
The existence of an additional procedure: As far as the plaintiff knows, there is no further proceeding in court regarding that factual tract.

Summons

Since the plaintiff has filed this lawsuit against you, you are invited to file Defense within 60 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 לתובע 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. Plaintiff 1 is ____________________. Plaintiff 1 entered into a leasing transaction with Defendant 1. The leasing vehicle provided as part of this transaction is in the use of Plaintiff 2.
2. As stated, Plaintiff 2 uses the vehicle that is the subject of the leasing transaction between Plaintiff 1 and Defendant 1. Plaintiff 2 is actually responsible for the payments for the leasing transaction by virtue of an agreement between him and Plaintiff 1. Plaintiff 1 has denied Plaintiff 2's power to conduct this proceeding on her behalf, as she has no interest in this proceeding, since Plaintiff 2 is the one who actually pays for the vehicle and uses it.
3. Defendant 1 is a company that engages in leasing transactions in the automotive sector, and Plaintiff 1's contract was made with it.
4. הנתבעת 2 היא יבואן הרכב של הרכב נשוא התביעה והיא גם אחראית על תיקונו ו/או החלפתו של הרכב בחדש (ראו הגדרת "אחריות" בLaw on Licensing Services and Professions in the Automotive Industry).

The reliefs requested in brief

• The Honorable Court is hereby requested to grant the plaintiffs the following reliefs:
• An order ordering the cancellation of the transaction between Plaintiff 1 and Defendant 1, and the refund of all payments made and to be made to Defendant 1 up to the date of the judgment. For reasons of caution, this amount is applied to the full value of the vehicle in accordance with the agreement (excluding the exercise component of the option to purchase the vehicle) plus the payment paid for the license fee and establishment and registration fees: _______ NIS, plus interest and linkage from the date of commencement of payment in the month of ________.
• לחלופין, רק במידה ובית המשפט הנכבד ידחה את הסעד לביטול עסקה, מבוקש בזאת להורות לנתבעת 2 להחליף את הרכב בחדש (הדבר אפשרי מכוח הגדרת "אחריות" בחוק רישוי שירותים ומקצועות בענף הרכב, והפסיקה שדנה באפשרות זו, ושתפורט להלן).
• In exchange, if the remedies for canceling the transaction and replacing the vehicle are rejected by the Honorable Court, it is hereby requested to order the defendants to compensate the plaintiffs for the commercial decrease in value caused to the vehicle due to the malfunctions and/or replacement of the engine in the vehicle, in the amount of ______ thousand shekels.
• The defendants are ordered, jointly and/or severally, to compensate plaintiff 2 in the amount of ______ thousand shekels for The anguish of the soul caused to him and/or the hassle he experienced and/or the loss of enjoyment of his vehicle and/or loss of time.
• Charging the defendants, jointly and/or severally, for the refund Lawyer's fees In which the plaintiffs bore, in the amount of _____ NIS.
• Any other and/or additional relief that the Honorable Court deems appropriate.

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

• Plaintiff 1 entered into a leasing agreement with Defendant 1 in order to obtain a vehicle for the benefit of Plaintiff 2. Plaintiff 2 is the one who actually uses and pays for the vehicle. The vehicle was delivered to Plaintiff 2 at the beginning of the month ______.
• After only 7 months, the vehicle broke down and the engine had to be replaced. In order to replace the engine, the vehicle was in the 2nd defendant's garage for Almost 60 days in a row (starting on _______), in violation of the provisions of the Automotive Services and Professions Licensing Law. This, in itself, entitles the plaintiffs to cancel the deal.
• לאחר שהרכב שוחרר מהמוסך לקראת סוף חודש ______ הוא המשיך לשוב מדי מספר ימים למוסך מכיוון שהתקלה לא נפתרה (סה"כ עוד ____ ביקורים במוסך).
• The round of repairs on the vehicle ended on _______.
• בתאריך ________ הרכב חזר שוב למוסך הנתבעת 2 מכיוון שהוא לא הצליח להאיץ (לדוגמה: בעקיפה בכביש מהיר התובע 2 לא מצליח לעבור מהירות של 60 – 70 קמ"ש).
• At the time of filing this lawsuit, the vehicle is still in Defendant 2's garage.
• On ______, Plaintiff 2 notified Defendant 1 of the cancellation of the transaction. Defendant 1 refused to cancel the transaction.
• Hence the lawsuit.

The facts that give the court jurisdiction

1. לבית המשפט הנכבד הסמכות העניינית והמקומית לדון בתביעה זו לאור סכום התביעה ומקום עסקה של הנתבעת 2, בהתאם לתקנה 7(א) תקנות סדר הדין האזרחי, תשע"ט – 2018.

Details of the allegations

1. Plaintiff 2 resides _______. Plaintiff 2 is ______________.
2. Plaintiff 1 has appointed Plaintiff 2 as her representative in this proceeding.

Appendix 1: Power of attorney that Plaintiff 2 received from Plaintiff 1 for the purpose of conducting this proceeding.

1. Plaintiff 2 also works in _______. In order to get from his place of residence ______ to his places of work in ______ and/or _______, he must travel up steep hills on _______ roads and ______ roads. For this purpose, Plaintiff needed a reliable and strong vehicle that could handle steep roads without difficulty.
2. בתאריך ________ התובעת 1 חתמה על הסכם לשכירות תפעולית (ליסינג) עם הנתבעת 1. במסגרת הסכם זה סוכם על קבלת רכב צ'רי מדגם טיגו 7 Pro PHEV Luxury, אוטומט, שנת ייצור ______, מספר רישוי __________, בעל הספק משולב של 347 כ"ס (להלן: "composition"). הנתבעת 1 סיפקה לתובע 2 את הרכב בתחילת חודש ________.
3. At the same time, Plaintiff 1 signed an agreement with Plaintiff 2, according to which he uses and actually pays for the use of this vehicle.

Appendix 2: Vehicle license, employment documents between Plaintiff 1 and Defendant 1, contract documents between Plaintiff 1 and Plaintiff 2.

• From a review of these documents, it is clear that the right to sue is vested in Plaintiff 2 as the person who actually pays and actually uses the vehicle.
• כאמור, הרכב בעל 347 כ"ס. מדובר ברכב "חזק" שיכול להתגבר על כבישים תלולים ללא קושי, כשהוא תקין. זאת הייתה אחת הסיבות העיקריות מדוע התובע 2 בחר דווקא ברכב זה. If the plaintiff had known in advance that the expensive vehicle he received would suffer from many malfunctions and/or that the engine in the vehicle would need to be replaced, he would not have considered paying for this vehicle at all, even at a significantly lower price.
• On _______, while driving to the Hosen Center in the Eshkol Regional Council, an error message appeared on the dashboard. Plaintiff 2 stopped at _____, on ______, heading for ______, and at ______ contacted a representative of an authorized garage on behalf of Defendant 2 in Jerusalem, where he had previously performed routine maintenance (Garage ___________).
• The garage representative instructed Plaintiff 2 not to drive the vehicle but to have it towed to the garage. Plaintiff 2 had to wait for the tow truck until approximately _______!! After the vehicle was towed, he had to contact his friend to have it rescued from the ______ parking lot because the tow truck operator refused to take Plaintiff 2 with him and drop him off at a place where Plaintiff could drive home.
• Ultimately, Plaintiff 2 arrived at his home on _______ at approximately _______. This was a very unpleasant experience that caused Plaintiff 2 great distress and loss of income for that day, as Plaintiff 2 was forced to cancel _____________.
• The next day, on _______, Plaintiff 2 received a notification from the garage representative that his vehicle had arrived at the garage.
• After several days, Plaintiff 2 was provided with a tiny replacement vehicle that smelled very strongly of cigarettes, model _______ (size _______).
• Despite inquiries and letters from Plaintiff 2 to the garage representative, he was unable to receive answers as to what exactly the problem was and what the garage intended to do with the vehicle. Each time, Plaintiff 2 received different answers regarding the need to replace various parts of the vehicle in order to repair it.
• On ______, Plaintiff 2 contacted Defendant 1's representative and demanded a new vehicle in light of the fact that there was a fault with the engine. Plaintiff 2 also demanded that Defendant 1 intervene and contact Defendant 2. Defendant 1's representative replied that he would try to help but that he lacked control over the importer/manufacturer from whom Plaintiff 2 received warranty for the vehicle.
• On ______, Plaintiff 2 again contacted Defendant 1's representative and complained that the vehicle had been in the garage for a long time and that there was a problem with the engine. Defendant 1's representative again claimed that although Defendant 1 was the owner of the vehicle, only Defendant 2 was responsible.
• ביום ______ נציג הנתבעת 1 ביקש מהתובע 2 לנסח מכתב מפורט שישלח "AS IS" לנתבעת 2, בשם הנתבעת 1. התובע 2 פעל כפי שהונחה והעביר לנתבעת 1 מכתב שכזה, אך נציג הנתבעת 1 הודיע שלא התקבלה שום תגובה מהנתבעת 2.

Appendix 3: Correspondence between Plaintiff 2 and the representative of Defendant 1 mentioned in the statement of claim.

• On _______, the garage representative contacted Plaintiff 2 and informed him that approval had been received to replace the engine in his vehicle. It should be emphasized that at this point the vehicle had been in the garage for 40 days. Plaintiff 2 was never told that there was any difficulty in importing the engine. Under these circumstances, Defendant 2 was required to provide the replacement engine within 7 business days (Section 48(c) of the Automotive Services and Professions Licensing Law).
• Because Plaintiff 2 does not appear as the owner of the vehicle on the vehicle license, Defendant 1's representative was required to go to Defendant 2's garage ______ and sign the replacement engine bill. Defendant 1's representative required Plaintiff 2 to travel to _______, collect the document, arrive at _______, so that Defendant 1's representative could sign the document, and then expected Plaintiff 2 to return _______ and return the original document. Plaintiff 2 refused this persuasion and, as far as he knows, Defendants 1-2's representatives met ______ to sign this document.
• The vehicle was delivered to Plaintiff 2 after the engine was replaced on ________ (almost 60 days later). It is unclear why Plaintiff 2 was required to wait another two weeks to receive his repaired vehicle.

Appendix 4: The vehicle's maintenance history.

• On _______, a letter of warning was sent to Defendant 2 before taking legal action, from Plaintiff 2's then-attorney.

Appendix 5: מכתבו של עוה"ד ______ מיום _______.

• This letter also demanded the replacement of the vehicle with a new one and financial compensation. This letter remained unanswered.
• On ______, Plaintiff 2 returned to the garage because the engine light came on. The vehicle was allegedly repaired that day and returned to Plaintiff 2.
• On ________ the engine light came on again and Plaintiff 2 was required to go to the _______ garage again. It should be emphasized that this time the vehicle did not start at all. The garage manager ______ instructed Plaintiff 2 on how to start the vehicle with a booster. The recurring faults in the vehicle, even after replacing the engine, indicate that the vehicle is defective.
• The vehicle was returned to Plaintiff 2 on ______ after a small battery was allegedly replaced.
• It should be emphasized that the visits to the garage on _______ and ________ are not documented in Defendant 1's maintenance history. Instead, the maintenance history details that the vehicle was allegedly in the defendant's garage continuously from ________ to __________.
• On ________ the vehicle returned to the garage again.. הפעם התגלתה תקלה חדשה במסגרתה הרכב מדי פעם פשוט לא מצליח לעבור מהירות של 60 – 70 קמ"ש. הדבר משפיע לרעה על התובע 2 מכיוון שבנסיעות בכביש מהיר אסור לנסוע במהירויות אלה, לא ניתן לעקוף רכבים, לא ניתן לעשות שימוש רגיל ברכב שמתפאר ב-347 כוחות סוס. התובע 2 פשוט לא יכול לסמוך על הרכב שהוא משלם עליו, והתנהלות הרכב עקב התקלות שבו עשויה אף להוות סכנה של ממש הן לתובע 2 עצמו והן לרכבים הסובבים אותו.
• At the time of filing this lawsuit, almost a month after the vehicle arrived at the garage, the vehicle is still in the garage. Once again, Defendant 2 is acting in violation of Section 48(c) of the Automotive Services and Professions Licensing Law.
• On _______, Plaintiff 2 sent a very long voice message to Defendant 1's representative in which he demanded that the transaction be canceled.
• למחרת, בתאריך ________, התובע 2 הודיע שוב לנציג הנתבעת 1 על ביטול העסקה, הפעם באמצעות הודעת וואטסאפ ודוא"ל

Appendix 6: הודעת וואטסאפ ודוא"ל מיום _______ מהתובע 2 לנציג הנתבעת 1 בדבר ביטול עסקה.

• In response to this notice, the representative of Defendant 1 threatened Plaintiff 2 with legal proceedings.
• On _______ (day ______) Plaintiff 2 was contacted by a garage representative on behalf of Defendant 2, stating that they were unable to locate the problem, and that in order to locate the problem, the owner of the screen would take the vehicle for use over the weekend, in order to try and locate the problem. This is absurd at its best, especially given the fact that at that time the vehicle had been in the garage for about a month.

The plaintiffs have the right to cancel the deal due to replacing the engine with a new vehicle and other defects discovered.

• The numerous and various faults in the vehicle constitute a non-conformity within the meaning of the term in the Sales Law. The plaintiffs also have the right to cancel the transaction under the Contracts Law due to mistake and deception, and also because a defect in the engine constitutes a fundamental breach of the agreement with the 1st defendant (see ruling relating to this below).
• Beyond the fact that Defendant 1 did nothing to assist Plaintiff 2, and all she actually did was forward the letter drafted by Plaintiff 2 to Defendant 2, the ruling explicitly states that replacing an engine is grounds for canceling a transaction, Even without attributing to the vehicle owner the use he made of the vehicle up to the date of cancellation of the transaction:
• כך 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, הן מכוח חוק החוזים (תרופות בשל הפרת חוזה)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.

…

I will add that the absence of any faults in the vehicle from the date the defective engine was replaced until today does not negate the decrease in value that I am convinced was caused by the engine replacement.הוכח אמנם כי המנוע השני תקין אך אינו דומה הרכב שבפני לאחר הרכבת המנוע השני, ומהכלולים, לרכב ככל שכל חלקיו היו מורכבים ע"י היצרןTo this is added the matter of registering the engine replacement on the vehicle license.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 7To 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 9966-05-09Raphael 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 9Pharmaceutical Contracts LawAnd 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 46200/01/16תנועה 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. "

See: ת"א 38239-11-15 אריאלה סער נ' צ'מפיון מוטורס בע"מ (Published in Nevo, 17.12.2018).

• יודגש, אין מדובר בפסק דין חריג. לתוצאה דומה הגיעו גם במקרים רבים אחרים. ראו לדוגמה: ת"א 32915-06-16 ענבר חקלאות בע"מ נ' יוניון מוטורס בע"מ (Published in Nevo, August 7, 2019):

"על-פי סעיף 11לLaw 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.

לקביעת מהותיות הפגם יש להתחשב, בין היתר, בחומרתו, היקפו, מספר ביקורי הלקוח במוסף השירות של היבואן, פרק הזמן שחלף מאז קבלת הרכב בידי הלקוח ועד להופעת הפגם, היקף נסועת הרכב ועוד". (See 25791-02-13 הילאנה בחוס נ' צ'מפיון מוטורס בע"מ )

I believe that this is none of our business. A fundamental defect, for example an engine defect, or in a safety system, אלא מדובר בפגם אסתטי, ואינו עולה לטעמי, לכדי אי התאמה, המחייבת החלפה לפי חוק."

• 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 that is not possible, Or if it is a fundamental defect and chronic that constitutes a current and future mismatch in 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.."

• In the circumstances described above, the plaintiffs are entitled to cancel the transaction, but if the Honorable Court does not accept this argument, then the plaintiffs are entitled to receive compensation in the amount of 10% for Commercial impairment (______ אלף שקלים). הפסיקה הכירה בפיצוי בגובה 10% משווי הרכב בגין ירידת ערך מסחרית לאחר החלפת מנוע ברכב וגם בפיצוי בגין ירידת ערך מסחרית על דרך האומדנה, ללא הגשת חוות דעת שמאית (ראו לדוגמה: ת"א 1647/06 שלומי לוטן נ' שערי דלק בע"מ (פורסם בנבו, 16.1.2008); ת"א 16120-11-11 אושרת שרה מכלוף נ' חברת יוניון מוטורס בע"מ (פורסם בנבו, 13.8.2015); ת"א 62934-08-22 רפאל קריביאן נ' סוכנות מכירות ליום התיכון בע"מ (Published in Nevo, 7.5.2024).

Plaintiffs have the right to cancel the deal due to a lengthy amendment that exceeds the provisions of the law.

• As a reminder, Plaintiff 2's vehicle arrived at the garage on ______ and remained there continuously until the end of the month ______. Section 48(c) of the Automotive Services and Professions Licensing Law states that the vehicle must be repaired within 7 business days.
• The ruling recognized that a lengthy repair that exceeds a reasonable time entitles the vehicle owner to cancel the transaction, Even if he was provided with a replacement vehicle:

" I do not believe that Defendant 3 has proven that the truck was repaired within a reasonable time. Therefore, the plaintiff has the right to cancel the agreement due to incompatibility.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.."

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

• While the law states that spare parts must be provided within 7 business days, and in reality, Defendant 2 did not allege any difficulty in providing the replacement engine (and at this point, her claims in this regard would be considered defeated claims), it cannot be argued that the lengthy repair over a period of almost 60 days during which the vehicle was in the garage continuously is a reasonable period of time.
• Without detracting from the above, it should be noted that according to the maintenance history of Defendant 2, the vehicle was allegedly continuously in the garage until _________. Plaintiff 2 explained that the vehicle was not continuously in the garage until _________ but simply continued to break down and arrive at the garage every few days, so in any case it cannot be said that the vehicle was repaired within a reasonable time.
• Moreover, even at the time of filing this lawsuit, the vehicle was again in the garage for a period of about a month, and again it cannot be said that the vehicle was repaired within a reasonable period of time.

The plaintiffs are entitled to have the vehicle replaced with a new one.

• הגדרת "אחריות" בחוק רישוי שירותים ומקצועות בענף הרכב קובעת כך:

""אחריות" – מתן שירות, בלא תשלום, לאחר מכירת רכב או Transportation product, including repair, treatment or replacement of the vehicle או של מוצר תעבורה, כדי להבטיח את תקינותם;"

• מהגדרת "אחריות" בחוק ברור שחובותיה של הנתבעת 2 לא מסתכמות אך ורק בתיקון הרכב, גם אם יתברר שהנתבעת 2 קובעת אחרת במסגרת תעודת האחריות שלה. הפסיקה הכירה בכך שתעודת האחריות היא תעודה שנועדה לתת אחריות ולא פטור מאחריות.
• Furthermore, the ruling cited in detail above clearly emphasizes that the law recognizes the replacement of a broken-down vehicle. In a new car.
• In the circumstances of the case, when the plaintiffs' vehicle suffered a significant malfunction that required an engine replacement, and when the vehicle's malfunctions were not resolved even after its replacement, Defendant 2 had to replace the vehicle with a new vehicle, and thus it is requested to order whether the Honorable Court will not order the cancellation of the transaction.

Plaintiff 2 is entitled to very significant financial compensation for the serious malfunctions and the numerous visits to the garage.

• As you know, a person who purchases a new vehicle does so specifically to avoid repeated visits to the garage.
• The defendants' conduct caused plaintiff 2 great distress, he experienced many unreasonable hassles, lost a great deal of time dealing with vehicle failures, and suffered a loss of enjoyment of his vehicle.
• בפסיקה ניתן למצוא דוגמאות רבות לכך בהם בתי המשפט פסקו במקרים דומים פיצוי כספי בסך עשרות אלפי שקלים, ואף 50 אלף שקלים. 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 - subsection (3) of section 11 of the Sales Law applies, 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. 

65. 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 (Published in Nevo, May 19, 2002); ת"א 10514/04 קורפין השקעות בע"מ נ' דוד לובינסקי בע"מ (Published in Nevo, September 4, 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).
66. In the circumstances described above, the amount of compensation required is reasonable and appropriate.
67. Also, in light of the fact that the defendants refused to cancel the transaction and/or replace the vehicle with a new one and/or compensate the plaintiff with any financial compensation, plaintiff 2 was forced to hire the services of his attorneys. First, attorney _______, and for the purpose of conducting this proceeding, his current attorney.
68. The plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement for his expenses in the amount of _______ NIS.

Appendix 7: Tax invoices for payments to lawyers totaling _______ NIS.

In conclusion

• In light of all of the above, the Honorable Court is hereby requested to summon the defendants to a hearing before it and to rule as follows:
• the remedies detailed in this statement of claim.
• To grant any other relief that the Honorable Court deems appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

_______________
עו"ד אדי בליטשטיין
ב"כ התובע