כתב תביעה נגד אורכיד ספורטס קארס ישראל בע"מ – תיקון ארוך

Our office submitted Claim נגד אורכיד ספורטס קארס ישראל בע"מ. חברה זו היא יבואנית של Porsche vehiclesThese are luxury vehicles that can cost up to a million shekels or more. These are vehicles that are a status symbol.

כתב תביעה נגד אורכיד ספורטס קארס ישראל בע"מ שהגשנו מתייחס למצב שבו נמסר לחברה רכב עם תקלה, והחברה לא תיקנה את הרכב בהתאם למועדים הקבועים בLaw on Licensing Services and Professions in the Automotive Industry, which sets a maximum period of time for the supply of spare parts and vehicle repair.

The law states that Car importers must deliver spare parts within 7 business days, and in very exceptional cases, within 45 business days. In the case in question, the customer waited almost 90 days for the vehicle to be repaired.

ביחד עם כתב תביעה נגד אורכיד ספורטס קארס ישראל בע"מ הוגשה גם חוות דעת שמאי אשר קבע שבזמן שהרכב שהה במוסך נגרמה ירידת ערך מסחרית והרכב איבד משוויו כ-55 אלף שקלים.

To succeed in the framework Lawsuits against car importers, and especially when it comes to car importers who deal in luxury vehicles, it is very important to prepare the claim correctly, collect appropriate evidence, and in relevant cases, also attach the following to the claim: Expert opinion That will support the plaintiff's claims regarding the damages caused to him or the vehicle.

Lawsuits against luxury car importers usually last a long time, more than a year, and involve the investment of significant amounts of money (Court fee, Lawyer's fees, expert opinion, etc.).

However, in appropriate cases, it is possible to demand the Canceling the new vehicle deal, Replacing the vehicle with a new one, financial compensation andRefund of legal costsIt is very important to consult with a lawyer regarding these types of claims. Car Claims Lawyer or Lawyer against a car importer.

כתב תביעה נגד אורכיד ספורטס קארס ישראל בע"מ

Regarding:

The plaintiff: שם + שם משפחה ת"ז: ______________
________________ Street 
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

Defendant: אורכיד ספורטס קארס ישראל בע"מ, ח.פ. 515234144
8 HaKhoslim St., Herzliya 4672408

Claim

Essence of the claim: Property damage – vehicle. 
Requested remedies: Financial compensation in the amount of 219,062 thousand shekels (for toll reasons). 
Court fee amount: 5,476.55 ש"ח (2,738.3 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 is aware, there is no other proceeding relevant to the disputes between the parties detailed in this statement of claim.

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 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. The plaintiff is the owner of a very luxurious vehicle, a Porsche Macan GTS, from _____, which at the time of its purchase cost about one million shekels, and as of the date of filing the lawsuit is worth about 400 thousand shekels (a sum that is not negligible by any means). This is a vehicle that is a status symbol in itself.
2. The defendant is a company that imports Porsche vehicles to Israel, and provides manufacturer's warranty for these vehicles.

The reliefs requested in brief

• The Honorable Court is hereby requested to grant the plaintiff the following reliefs:
• Financial compensation in the amount of 125 thousand shekels (for fee reasons) for the defendant's unlawful enrichment at the plaintiff's expense, and alternatively, compensation for the plaintiff's non-pecuniary damages.
• To impose on the defendant the commercial depreciation caused to the vehicle + the depreciation due to the vehicle being in the defendant's garage for approximately three months - NIS 55,200 (see the appraiser's opinion attached to the statement of claim).
• To impose on the defendant legal costs and attorney's fees in the amount of NIS 29,500, which the plaintiff paid to his attorney.
• The defendant must pay for the rental of a replacement vehicle – 7062 NIS.
• The defendant must pay for an expert opinion in the amount of 2300 NIS.

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

• On _____, the plaintiff's vehicle arrived at the defendant's garage for the purpose of repairing various defects under the manufacturer's warranty, all after a warning light came on and in accordance with the instructions of the importer's service advisor.
• למחרת הודיע נציג הנתבעת לתובע כי התגלתה תקלה בבולמי הרכב, ולא ניתן לתקן את הרכב מכיוון שאין חלקי חילוף נחוצים במלאי. הנתבעת לא החליפה את הרכב בהתאם להגדרת "אחריות" בחוק רישוי שירותים ומקצועות בענף הרכב.
• Ultimately, the vehicle was repaired and released to the plaintiff on ______ (after almost 90 days), contrary to the provisions of Section 48 of the Automotive Services and Professions Licensing Law.

The facts that give the court jurisdiction

• The Honorable Court has the authority to hear the claim in light of its nature and the amount of the claim, and also because the defendant's address is in the city of Herzliya (the same jurisdictional district), in accordance with Regulation 7(a) of the Civil Procedure Regulations.

Details of the allegations

• The plaintiff is the owner of a Porsche Macan GTS, year ______, with license plate number ______. As of today, the vehicle is worth approximately 400,000 shekels.

Appendix 1: A copy of the vehicle license and a screenshot of a vehicle price list on the Yad 2 website showing the value of the vehicle as of the date the claim was filed.

• The plaintiff is not the original owner of the vehicle and is not the one who purchased the vehicle from the defendant, but it is undisputed that the plaintiff's vehicle is still under manufacturer's warranty. Section 8 of the warranty certificate also expressly states that selling the vehicle to a person who is not a vehicle dealer does not void the manufacturer's warranty.

Appendix 2: A copy of the warranty certificates indicating that the plaintiff's vehicle was and is still under manufacturer's warranty.

1. On ______, the plaintiff's vehicle arrived at the garage to have various defects repaired. The next day, the defendant's representative informed the plaintiff that there was a problem with the vehicle's shock absorbers.
2. Despite repeated assurances from the defendant's representative that the part would eventually arrive in Israel, the vehicle was ultimately repaired and released to the plaintiff only on ______ (almost 90 days later).

Appendix 3: WhatsApp correspondence between the plaintiff and the defendant's representative.

1. גם פניותיו של התובע ליצרן בחו"ל לא סייעו לקדם את הטיפול ותיקון רכבו.
2. In light of the defendant's failures, the plaintiff was forced to rent a replacement vehicle at his own expense, for part of the repair period. This replacement vehicle is light years away from the plaintiff's luxurious, prestigious and luxurious vehicle, a Hyundai Vaneo and later a Hyundai I20. The plaintiff paid a total of 7062 NIS for the rental.

Appendix 4: Proof of payment for the car rental.

1. A review of the provisions of the Automotive Services and Professions Licensing Law will reveal that the defendant acted in extreme violation of the law. Section 48(c) of the law states:

"יבואן ישיר ויבואן עקיף יספקו מוצר תעבורה של דגם רכב שהם מייבאים, Within seven working days of receiving the order; ואולם יבואן ישיר רשאי לספק מוצר תעבורה לרכב מדגם שהוא לא מייבא, בתוך 14 ימי עבודה מיום קבלת ההזמנה."

1. The defendant is a direct importer and the vehicle subject to the lawsuit was imported into Israel by it. Under these circumstances, the vehicle should have been repaired within only seven business days. As you may recall, the vehicle was repaired after almost 90 days.
2. בנוסף, הגדרת "אחריות" בחוק רישוי שירותים ומקצועות בענף הרכב קובעת כך:

""אחריות" – מתן שירות, בלא תשלום, לאחר מכירת רכב או מוצר תעבורה, הכולל תיקון, טיפול or replacement of the vehicle או של מוצר תעבורה, כדי להבטיח את תקינותם;"

1. The plaintiff's vehicle was under manufacturer's warranty, and as evidence, the repair of the vehicle's shock absorbers (and the other defects for which the vehicle was taken to the garage) did not involve any cost to the plaintiff. In the circumstances where the defendant failed to repair the vehicle within seven business days, as required by law, The defendant had to replace the vehicle with a new one. (especially when the vehicle suffered from a safety defect relevant to the vehicle's brakes), and not make the plaintiff wait for his vehicle to be repaired for almost 90 days, absorb the decrease in the value of the vehicle (in the amount of 15 thousand shekels! - see the appraiser's opinion below), make the plaintiff continue to pay insurance and license fees for the expensive vehicle, which could not be frozen, and of course, Causing the plaintiff mental anguish and loss of enjoyment from not being able to use his luxury vehicle.
2. It is impossible to describe in words the anguish felt by a person who has invested hundreds of thousands of shekels of his best money to drive a luxurious and luxurious car, and in the end finds himself forced to drive a simple rented car that is not at all suitable for his needs.
3. The ruling recognized situations in which a defective vehicle must be replaced under the manufacturer's warranty, In a new car. כך לדוגמה במסגרת ת"א 18449/99 שמואל מור נ' דוד לובינסקי בע"מ (Published in Nevo, December 1, 2002):

" There is no doubt that the buyer of a new vehicle is entitled to have it in good condition and in accordance with the condition of a new vehicle.and that any malfunction not caused by his fault or negligence will be repaired Within the warranty period 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 – Due to a fundamental incompatibility – given by him immediately upon the discovery of the said fundamental defect, או תוך זמן סביר מהתגלותו, וכאשר הליקוי אינו מטופל ע"י החברה המוכרת."

• הפסיקה אף הכירה במצב שבו תיקון ארוך מוביל לביטול העסקה. ראו ת"א 19906-02-13 Brom 58 Import and Marketing Agencies v. Alon Truck Garages (1992) (Published in Nevo, May 3, 2016):

"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.."

• In this case, although the plaintiff cannot demand the cancellation of the transaction because he did not originally purchase the vehicle from the defendant, the above rulings emphasize the plaintiff's right to demand (and receive) New replacement sedan מכוח הגדרת "אחריות" בחוק רישוי שירותים ומקצועות בענף הרכב.
• בשעה שהנתבעת בחרה לפעול בניגוד לדין, ולא תיקנה את הרכב תוך 7 ימי עסקים, ואף לא החליפה את הרכב כפי שהיה עליה לעשות מכוח הגדרת "אחריות בחוק רישוי שירותים ומקצועות בענף הרכב, הרי שהיא התעשרה על חשבונו של התובע, וכתוצאה מכך היא מחויבת לשלם לתובע את שווי "הזכיה" (ראו סעיף 1(א) לחוק עשיית עושר ולא במשפט). במקרה זה "הזכיה" זהו הסכום שחסכה הנתבעת בשעה שנמנעה מלהחליף את רכבו של התובע לרכב חדש.
• According to the defendant's own publications today, on its website[1] [2]The cheapest Macan pension, as of the date of filing the claim, starts at 625,000 shekels, and can reach 947,000 shekels.

Appendix 5: Screenshots from the defendant's website indicating the costs of various Porsche Macan models.

• In this case, the defendant saved at least 625 thousand NIS, and more realistically, the defendant saved 947 thousand NIS.
• It should be emphasized that the plaintiff's claim regarding the issue of unjust enrichment is based on the defendant's violation of the provisions of the Automotive Services and Professions Licensing Law, mentioned above, and not the terms of the warranty certificate.
• A review of Section 1 of the warranty certificate will reveal the following section:
• "תנאי תעודת האחריות המפורטים להלן אינם משפיעים על זכויותיו החוקתיות של הלקוח או זכויות אחרות של הלקוח תחת התנאים של חוזה מכירה טרום בעלות על הרכב או אחריות של רכב חדש התקפים עכשיו."
• That is, the defendant is aware that the terms of the warranty certificate do not override the provisions of the law. However, the defendant's warranty certificate does not include an obligation to replace the vehicle, as required by law!
• In addition, it can easily be seen that the warranty certificate contains provisions that not only contradict the law mentioned above, but that they are discriminatory terms in a uniform contract, which are subject to annulment.
• כך לדוגמה: בסעיף 4, תחת המילים "כעיקרון, השירותים הבאים אינם כלולים", כתוב, בין היתר כך:

"פיצוי עבור הוצאות כתוצאה ישירה או עקיפה (למשל עלויות גרירה, הוצאות אחסון, עלות רכב שכור, פיצוי עבור הפסד שימוש למשל רכש של חלקי חילוף מתעכב) אלא אם הם מבוטחים בפרושה בכיסוי נפרד".

• In addition, Section 6 of the Certificate of Warranty states:

"6. תביעות אחרות מאלו המפורטות בסעיפים 1 עד 5 לא תהינה בתוקף. דבר זה מתייחס במיוחד לתביעות עבור נסיגה מהחוזה, החלפה, הפחתה, או החזר כספי של הוצאות נוספות מכל סוג שהוא שנגרמו ע"י הלקוח."

• These sections are disadvantageous conditions and are subject to annulment by virtue of the provisions of sections 3, 4(1), 4(2), 4(6), 4(8), 5(a) of the Unlawful Amassing of Wealth Law.
• In addition, the ruling reiterated that the purpose of the warranty certificate is to provide liability and not exemption from liability.. כך 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.."

• בתאריך ______ ב"כ התובע פנה במכתב התראה לפני נקיטת הליכים משפטיים, ודרש לפצות את התובע. בתאריך ______ ב"כ הנתבעת השיב ודחה את דרישות התובע באופן מלא, בטענה כי העיכוב נבע מהמצב הבטחוני. דא עקא, הנתבעת הייתה בהפרה של הוראות חוק רישוי שירותים ומקצועות בענף הרכב עוד הרבה לפני המלחמה עם איראן, והמשיכה להפר הוראות חוק זה הרבה לאחר סיומה של המלחמה. It should be emphasized that the WhatsApp correspondence between the plaintiff and the defendant's representative indicates that the war in Iran had nothing to do with the significant delay in repairing the vehicle.
• The plaintiff was forced to pay his attorney fees of NIS 29,500 in order to pursue this claim against the defendant.

Appendix 6: The warning letter dated ______, the response letter dated ______, the vehicle's maintenance history, and a tax invoice indicating payment of fees.

• The plaintiff believes that he is entitled to significant monetary compensation both in light of the defendant's enrichment at his expense (since the defendant should have replaced the vehicle in these circumstances and not made the plaintiff wait almost 90 days). Alternatively, the plaintiff believes that even if the court determines that the defendant did not enrich himself at the plaintiff's expense, the plaintiff is entitled to very significant monetary compensation for being denied any opportunity to use his luxury vehicle for such a long period of time, during which the defendant acted in violation of the law.
• יודגש, אין עסקינן ברכב "רגיל" אלא ברכב שנרכש מלכתחילה עקב העובדה שהוא מהווה סמל סטטוס, וחווית הנהיגה בו שונה. אי אפשר לצפות מאדם שרוכש רכב פורש במאות אלפי שקלים להפיק את אותה הנאה מנהיגה ברכב עממי ופשוט.
• It should also be emphasized that The defendant did not provide the plaintiff with a replacement vehicle of the same model. (or at all) after 7 business days, thereby saving the defendant, at the very least, the cost of renting such a vehicle.
• Under these circumstances, the compensation required by the plaintiff is justified and reasonable, especially in light of examples in the case law indicating compensation in the amount of 50 thousand shekels when a person is required to take his vehicle to the garage several times. The present case is more serious because in this case, unlike the cases detailed in the case law below, the plaintiff's right to use his vehicle was completely denied for a period of almost 3 months.
• לדוגמה ת"א 2449/07 שלמה אנג'ל נ' צ'מפיון מוטורס (ישראל) בע"מ (Published in Nevo, June 9, 2011):

"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).
…
If Union Motors were to take responsibility for a new car that constantly has new serious problems, and replace the plaintiff's vehicle 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. 

43. 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).
44. כאמור לעיל, התובע סבור כי במקרה דנן סכום הפיצוי צריך להיות גבוה משמעותית הן לאור העובדה שמדובר ברכב יוקרתי מאוד (ולא סופק לתובע רכב חלופי מדגם זהה) המהווה סמל סטטוס של ממש, המספק חווית נהיגה יחודית, הן לאור פרק הזמן שנמשך התיקון (כמעט 90 ימים במקום 7 ימי עבודה, כפי שקבוע בחוק), והן לאור העובדה שהנתבעת לא החליפה את הרכב מכוח הגדרת "אחריות" בחוק רישוי שירותים ומקצועות בענף הרכב.
45. בתאריך _____ קיבל התובע חוות דעת שמאית המעידה כי נגרמו לתובע שני נזקים: 1. ירידת ערך מסחרית בסך 40,200 ש"ח; 2. ירידת שוויו של הרכב בזמן ששהה במוסך במשך כשלושה חודשים (ראו סעיף 6 לחוות הדעת) – בסך 15 אלף שקלים.

Appendix 7: The appraiser's opinion on behalf of the plaintiff.

• In Section 4 of the expert opinion, the plaintiff's expert stated as follows:

"מכאן יודגש כי ירידת ערך שתקבע בחוות דעתי זו הינה ירידת ערך מסחרית, הווה אומר לאחר שהרכב תוקן באופן סביר עדיין נשארות רשומות במסמך זה או אחרThese facts may cause the prospective buyer to forgo purchasing the vehicle altogether or to insist on a significant reduction in the purchase price of the vehicle.".

• As stated in detail above, the plaintiff purchased a luxury vehicle to enjoy it and not to suffer damages as a result of the defendant's negligent and unlawful conduct, which affected the plaintiff for approximately three months, and will continue to affect the plaintiff, in accordance with the expert opinion, when he decides to sell the vehicle in the future.

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.
• To grant any other relief that the Honorable Court deems appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

_______________
עו"ד אדי בליטשטיין
ב"כ התובע

[1] https://www.porsche.co.il/%D7%93%D7%92%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9D/macan/macan_electric/macan

[2] https://www.porsche.co.il/%D7%93%D7%92%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9D/macan