What are construction defects?
Construction defects are anything that does not comply with the specifications presented to the buyer before purchasing the apartment, or construction that does not comply with an official standard or building regulations.
In simple terms, construction defects are discrepancies between what was presented and ordered by the buyer of the apartment, and what was actually provided to him by the contractor.
There are, of course, construction defects of varying degrees. A recently published example is of a contractor who provided the buyer of an apartment with a small parking space, which does not comply with the provisions of the law, so that the vehicle does enter the parking space but the vehicle doors cannot be opened while the vehicle is parked. The compensation in these cases can be significant. and exceed 150 thousand shekels.
On the other hand, a construction defect can manifest itself in a minor leak due to improperly installed piping. The damage in these cases can reach several thousand shekels.
Either way, any construction defect should not be taken lightly and should be addressed as soon as possible by virtue of the duty to minimize damage imposed on every person.
How do you deal with construction defects?
The initial method of dealing with construction defects is set out in Section 4B of the Sales (Apartments) Law, which states as follows:
(A) If a non-conformity or fundamental non-conformity that can be corrected is discovered, the buyer or sub-buyer must give the seller a reasonable opportunity to correct it, and the seller must correct it within a reasonable time.
(on) If the non-conformity or fundamental non-conformity is discovered again after the seller has corrected it once or more times during two years beginning on the date of the buyer's or sub-buyer's notification of the non-conformity or fundamental non-conformity, or if the correction of the non-conformity or fundamental non-conformity is urgent and the seller has not corrected it within a reasonable time from the date of the buyer's or sub-buyer's notification as aforesaid, the buyer or sub-buyer may correct it and the seller shall bear the costs of the correction.
That is, according to the provisions of Section 4B of the Sale (Apartments) Law, the apartment purchaser must give the contractor the opportunity to repair the construction defect, and only if the contractor does not repair the defect within a reasonable period of time, the apartment purchaser may repair the defect himself and demand that the contractor bear the costs of the repair.
Contacting a Construction Defects Lawyer
If the contractor did not repair the construction defects within a reasonable period of time or made a repair that did not solve the problem, and did not repair it again after further notice from the buyer, it is worth considering contacting a construction defects lawyer to review the case.
In general, it is advisable to seek the services of a construction defects lawyer and file a Claim for construction defects Only after the end of the inspection period. A claim for construction defects can be filed within the inspection period if the contractor did not repair the defect within a reasonable time or ignored the apartment buyer's requests.
According to a recent ruling by the Supreme Court, filing a claim for construction defects before the end of the inspection period may lead to a reduction in the compensation awarded in favor of the plaintiff, and in more extreme cases, compensation may even be denied entirely.
Supreme Court ruling on construction defects
A Supreme Court ruling is a ruling that is binding on all courts. The Supreme Court addressed the issue of construction defects and in what situations the plaintiff's compensation will be reduced if the contractor is unable to correct the defects within the inspection period.
בין היתר נקבע על ידי בית המשפט העליון, כך (רע"א 18136-03-26 גיל עמירן נ' שמי אשקלוני בע"מ):
Hence, the law prioritizes the actual correction of the defect by the seller, before the buyer applies to the courts for other remedies, including monetary compensation. The reason for this lies both in the relationship of the parties to the sales contract, since a new apartment is an asset in which defects may only be discovered after delivery, and in systemic efficiency considerations, which seek to prevent premature and unnecessary litigation where the defects can be corrected without judicial involvement…
לצד הנטל ליתן למוכר הזדמנות נאותה לתיקון הליקויים, בהלכה הפסוקה נקבע כי ככלל, הגשת תביעה בגין ליקויי בנייה תיעשה רק אחרי שחלפה תקופת הבדק, אשר קבועה בתוספת לחוק המכר דירות ואשר משתנה לפי סוגי אי-ההתאמה. ברוח זו, נקבע בעניין סגל כי תקופת הבדק נועדה לאפשר איתור של פגמים ואי-התאמות בתוך פרק זמן קצוב ותיקונם על ידי המוכר וכי "ככלל, לצדדים כולם, כמו-גם למערכת המשפט, אינטרס בהקפדה על כך שקונים לא יגישו תביעתם בגין ליקויי בניה בטרם הודיעו למוכר על הליקויים ויאפשרו לו לתקנם עד תומה של שנת הבדק"…
Accordingly, as a general rule, a buyer seeking relief for construction defects is burdened with a combined burden: a claim for construction defects may only be filed after the inspection period has passed and after the contractor has been given a reasonable opportunity to correct the defects during or near the end of the inspection period (see: Segal case, at paragraph 9). However, this is not a rigid rule that in every case precludes filing a claim during the inspection period. Where the buyer has given the seller a reasonable and genuine opportunity to correct the defects, but the seller has not done so within a reasonable time, or has ignored the buyer's requests, the path to the courts may open even before the end of the inspection period (see: ibid., at paragraph 9).
…
In terms of incentives in a relationship such as this, if a buyer who did not give the seller a proper opportunity to repair were entitled, despite his failure, to compensation reflecting the cost of repair by an external contractor, this would create a problematic incentive to file early financial claims and thwart the repair mechanism. Entitlement to such compensation would encourage the buyer to prefer going to court rather than being given an opportunity to repair. This outcome is undesirable and could render the statutory right of repair to the seller meaningless.
לעומת זאת, פסיקת פיצויים מותאמים לפי עלות התיקון למוכר אינה יוצרת אותו עיוות תמריצי. קונה שלא נתן למוכר הזדמנות נאותה לתקן ליקויים בדירתו אינו יוצא נשכר ממחדלו: הוא אינו זכאי לעלות התיקון המלאה באמצעות קבלן חיצוני; וכפועל יוצא מכך, אינו מקבל את הרווח הקבלני, את דמי ההתארגנות, את המע"מ, ואת ההוצאות העודפות הנוספות הכרוכות בתיקון הדירה כאמור. בכך נשמר התמריץ של קונה הדירה לאפשר למוכר לבצע את התיקונים הנדרשים; ובד-בבד, המוכר אינו יוצא נשכר ממסירת דירה לקויה לקונה – שכן, הוא משלם לקונה את עלות התיקונים עבורו.
…
Therefore, the proper balance is nothing other than this: Section 4B(a) of the Sale of Apartments Law grants the seller of the apartment a protected interest that imposes on the buyer the burden of giving the seller a fair opportunity to repair the construction defects in the apartment. Violation of this burden by the buyer is not a trivial matter, and must have a real financial impact. However, this impact must be proportionate to the damage caused to the seller due to the denial of the right to repair, without becoming immunity from liability for proven defects. Where the defect in the apartment has been proven, and the seller would have been required to bear the cost of repairing it if he had been given a fair opportunity to repair the defect, there is no justification for presenting the buyer with a broken trough and leaving the seller exempt from the cost that he would have borne anyway.
במסגרת זו, קונה שבוחר לתבוע את הקבלן בבית משפט, מבלי לתת לו הזדמנות נאותה לבצע בדירה את התיקונים הנדרשים, נוטל על עצמו סיכון ממשי. גם אם הלה יוכיח את הליקויים, הוא לא יהיה זכאי לפיצויים הנגזרים מעלות התיקונים באמצעות קבלן חיצוני בשוק חופשי. הפיצוי שייפסק לטובתו יהא מוגבל לעלות התיקון למוכר הדירה – סכום שנופל באופן משמעותי ממחיר השוק. למשל, בענייננו, הפער בין פיצויי השוק החופשי לבין הפיצויים המותאמים, כאמור בחוות דעתו של מומחה בית המשפט, עומד על 20%; ופער זה יכול שילך ויגדל, בהתאם לנסיבות (ראו: זמיר, בעמ' 585-584, ה"ש 11, הסוקר פערים כאמור אשר הגיעו קרוב ל-75%).
I will add and clarify that I do not believe that we should adopt the adjusted damages ruling without reservations. In exceptional cases, in which the buyer's conduct amounts to gross bad faith and deliberate thwarting of the correction mechanism, it will be possible to consider more significant reductions in damages, to the point of negating the right to receive damages in extreme cases (which we are not dealing with).
In conclusion
When a person purchases a new apartment from a contractor, they expect to receive an apartment without construction defects. However, life experience shows that almost every new apartment delivered by a contractor has construction defects, some more serious and some less serious.
When construction defects are discovered, the buyer of the apartment must allow the contractor to repair the defects within a reasonable period of time.
Usually, it will be possible to file a claim for construction defects, with the assistance of a construction defects lawyer, at the end of the inspection period, but there will be cases in which the claim can also be filed at an earlier stage, especially if the contractor did not repair the defects within a reasonable period of time or if he ignored the apartment buyer's request.
As a general rule, filing a claim without allowing the contractor to repair the defect will lead to a reduction (sometimes significant) in the amount of compensation that the buyer will demand under the contract. The statement of claim.
