Example of a financial claim – claim to the Magistrate's Court

Here is an example of a financial claim letter from which you can learn how to write. Claim That's right, so that you increase your chances of success in court, and so that the lawsuit is accepted by the court secretariat in the first place.

It is very important to consult with a lawyer before filing any claim and not to rely solely on a sample financial claim on this or any other website, as your case may require adjustments that are unique to your case. It is not recommended to file Claim to the Magistrate's Court Without legal assistance Claims lawyer experienced.

Keep in mind that filing a claim incorrectly may lead to you having to file Request to amend a statement of claim During the procedure.

The problem with amending a claim is that if the court grants the request, the entire process will start over and you will lose a lot of time. In addition, there is a very high probability that the court will require you toLegal expenses In favor of the defendant, because the defendant will be forced to submit Defense corrected.

If the court rejects your request, there is a high probability that it will still charge you legal fees because the defendant was forced to respond to your request. Legal fees can range from hundreds of shekels to thousands of shekels.

Example of a financial claim

Regarding:

The plaintiff:

שם + שם משפחה, ת"ז: ________
__________ Street, city name 
Tel: __________________

ע"י ב"כ 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

The defendants:

1. ______________, C.P.: _____________ 
   ___________ Street, city name
2. ____________, H.P. ______________ 

_________ Street, city name

Claim

Essence of the claim:  Supplier – customer. 
Requested remedies: פיצוי כספי 252,120 ש"ח.
Court fee amount: 6303 ש"ח (3151.5 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 statement of claim against you, you are invited to file a statement of defense within 60 days from the date this summons was served on you.

לתשומת לבכם, אם לא תגישו כתב הגנה אזי לפי תקנה 130 לתקנות סדר הדין האזרחי, התשע"ט-2018, תהיה לתובע הזכות לקבל פסק דין שלא בפניכם.

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

A concise description of the litigants

1. The plaintiff is _____________________-.
2. Defendant 1 is a car dealership that sold the vehicle (taxi) that is the subject of this lawsuit to the plaintiff. The vehicle sold to the plaintiff by Defendant 1 was imported into Israel through parallel import, and was ostensibly sold to him as a new vehicle.
3. Defendant 2 is a company that provides warranty for the vehicle that is the subject of this lawsuit, and as far as the plaintiff knows, it is the one responsible for repairing his vehicle. Defendant 2 failed to repair the plaintiff's vehicle for over six months during which the vehicle was in storage. in a row In this defendant's garage (And continues to reside there even at the time the lawsuit is filed).

The relief sought in summary

• The Honorable Court is hereby requested to grant the plaintiff the following reliefs:
• A declaratory order stating that the plaintiff lawfully canceled the transaction with the 1st defendant and/or an order ordering the cancellation of the vehicle purchase transaction.
• A declaratory order stating that the plaintiff has lawfully canceled the agreement with defendant 2 dated October 26, 2023 and/or an order ordering the cancellation of this agreement.
• חיוב הנתבעת 1 בהשבת ו/או תשלום 126,360 ש"ח (עלות הרכב).
• חיוב הנתבעות 1 ו/או 2, ביחד ו/או לחוד, בתשלום פיצויים לתובע בסך 100 אלף ש"ח בגין עוגמת נפש אדירה ו/או אי נוחות ו/או טרטורים רבים מאוד ו/או אובדן הנאה מרכבו.
• חיוב הנתבעות 1 ו/או 2, ביחד ו/או לחוד, בתשלום 25,760 ש"ח בגין תשלומים עבור השכרת רכב חלופי לחודשים יולי – ספטמבר 2023.

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

• On June 2, 2022, the plaintiff purchased 1 vehicle (taxi) from the defendant, a Nissan Leaf. The vehicle was presented to the plaintiff as a new vehicle.
• On June 29, 2023, while the vehicle was still under manufacturer's warranty, a battery malfunction was discovered in the vehicle that prevented the vehicle from being used. On that day, the vehicle entered the garage of Defendant 2, who stated in a document provided to the plaintiff that the vehicle was expected to remain in the garage for at least 60 days (an unreasonable period of time in itself).
• However, the plaintiff's vehicle had not been repaired even by the date of filing this lawsuit, and the plaintiff was not informed at all when his vehicle was actually expected to be repaired.
• On December 11, 2023, the plaintiff sent notices before taking legal action to both defendants. Neither defendant bothered to respond to the plaintiff's inquiries.
• In light of the defendants' conduct, the plaintiff was first forced to rent a replacement vehicle, and at a later stage, purchase another vehicle in order to be able to continue earning a living, and thus the plaintiff fulfilled his duty to minimize his damages.
• In addition, it turned out that there was a discrepancy between the ownership/delivery date written on the vehicle license (7.6.2022) and the date written on the document received on behalf of Defendant 2 (7.12.2021). These documents indicate that the plaintiff did not receive a completely new vehicle. This also emerged from the plaintiff's conversation with a manager at Defendant 2.

The facts that give the court jurisdiction

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

Details of the allegations

1. בתאריך 2.6.2022 התובע רכש רכב (מונית) מדגם ניסן ליף מנתבעת 1, בסך של 126,360 ש"ח. הרכב הוצג לתובע כרכב חדש.

Appendix 1: חשבונית מס מטעמה של נתבעת 1 על סך 126,360 ש"ח, אסמכתאות לכך שהתובע עובד כנהג מונית.

1. On June 29, 2023, the vehicle entered the garage of Defendant 2 due to a battery malfunction. Defendant 2 is the one who provides the warranty for the vehicle that the plaintiff drove from Defendant 1.
2. From quote number _______ that the plaintiff received from defendant 2, the vehicle was expected to remain in the garage for at least 60 days. This period of time, in itself, is not reasonable, and certainly not when the vehicle is used as a vehicle..

Appendix 2: A document that the plaintiff received from defendant 2 indicating that the vehicle was brought into the garage and the vehicle's license.

1. Months passed and the vehicle remained in the garage, and the plaintiff was not even given a date for completing the repair. כל חודש שהרכב "מבלה" במוסך הוא ממשיך לאבד מערכו, ואין זה סביר שהתובע יספוג ירידת ערך זו עקב רשלנות הנתבעת 2.
2. על מנת למזער את נזקיו התובע נאלץ לשכור מונית חלופית, ושילם בגין חודשים יולי – ספטמבר 2023 דמי שכירות בסך 25,760 ש"ח, אותם הוא לא היה משלם אילו הנתבעות ביחד ו/או לחוד היו מספקות לו מונית חלופית על חשבונן. משכך, התובע זכאי לקבל החזר בגין סכום זה.

Appendix 3: חשבונית מס המעידה שהתובע שילם 25,760 ש"ח עבור השכרת מונית חלופית בחודשים יולי – ספטמבר 2023.

1. Because no one bothered to inform the plaintiff when his vehicle would actually be repaired and/or no one bothered to provide him with a replacement taxi until the repair was completed, the plaintiff decided to purchase a replacement vehicle.
2. The plaintiff contacted representatives of Defendant 1 several times and asked for their help in expediting the treatment of the vehicle, but to no avail.
3. The plaintiff was even willing to make a trade-in with defendant 1, and purchase another vehicle from her. Initially, a representative of defendant 1 examined this option, but ultimately informed the plaintiff that since it was unknown when his vehicle would be repaired, he could not agree to a trade-in because then defendant 2 would have to wait until the repair was completed (a date unknown as of the filing of the lawsuit).
4. בתאריך 26.10.2023 נתבעת 2 החתימה את התובע (אדם שאינו שולט היטב בשפה העברית, ובטח שאינו מבין היטב טרמינולוגיה משפטית) על הסכם דרקוני (להלן: "הסכם העושק") לפיו היא תספק לו "מחווה מסחרית" בגין פרק הזמן שהרכב שהה במוסך (עד למועד חתימת ההסכם). אותה "מחווה מסחרית" הסתכמה בסך של 10 אלפים שקלים בלבד.
5. כנגד אותה "מחווה מסחרית" נתבעת 2 דרשה לקבל התחייבות לשמירת סודיות, וויתור הטענות של התובע כנגדה. השימוש במילה "מחווה" בצירוף התנאים הדרקוניים שפורטו בהסכם העושק מהווה לעג לרש.

Appendix 4: The extortion agreement dated October 26, 2023 between the plaintiff and the defendant 2.

• In Section 5 of the Extortion Agreement, it was agreed that at the time of the amendment's conclusion, the parties would hold another meeting to discuss additional compensation. In other words, even if we assume that the Honorable Court does not order the annulment of the Extortion Agreement (see separate section below), it is clear to everyone that even under Defendant 2's approach, the plaintiff is entitled to additional financial compensation for the period of time after the signing of the Extortion Agreement.
• בתאריך 11.12.2023 ב"כ התובע פנה במכתבי התראה לפני נקיטת הליכים משפטיים לשתי הנתבעות. עד למועד הגשת תביעה זו אף אחת מהן לא טרחה להגיב על מכתבי התראה אלה.

Appendix 5: Warning letters sent to the defendants on December 11, 2023.

• As part of the notice sent to Defendant 1, the plaintiff announced the cancellation of the transaction. If the plaintiff had known from the outset that he would have to wait more than six months (until the date of filing this lawsuit) to repair his vehicle, he would not have considered purchasing the vehicle that is the subject of the lawsuit, even at a lower price. If the plaintiff had known that he was being provided with a vehicle that was not new, he would not have purchased the vehicle even in this condition.
• In addition, as part of the warning letter to Defendant 1, she was required to forward any document provided to the plaintiff (if any were actually provided) at the time of the transaction, including (but not limited to) a contract agreement, a warranty certificate, correspondence and/or inquiries from Defendant 1 to the garage that handles the plaintiff's vehicle, and any other document relating to the plaintiff's vehicle that is in the defendant's possession. Defendant 1 did not respond to the letter and did not submit a single document.
• As part of the notice letter to Defendant 2, the plaintiff informed her of the cancellation of the extortion agreement dated October 26, 2023 and asked to know where and how Defendant 2 wanted him to return the 10,000 shekels he received from her. After signing the extortion agreement, more than two more months passed until the filing of the lawsuit, during which nothing changed and it is still unclear whether and when Defendant 2 would be willing to finish and repair the plaintiff's vehicle. Under these circumstances, it is unreasonable to expect the plaintiff to continue to wait for the vehicle to be repaired and to discuss the compensation he is entitled to upon completion of the repair (the date of which, as stated, is unknown). Defendant 2's conduct constitutes extreme bad faith.
• כמו כן, נתבעת 2 נדרשה להעביר לידי ב"כ התובע כל מסמך הקשור לרכב נשוא התביעה אשר נמצא בידיה, לרבות (אך לא רק) היסטוריית טיפולים, פניות נתבעת 2 לגורמים בחו"ל על מנת לייבא את הסוללה החלופית. בנוסף, נתבעת 2 נדרשה להעביר לידי ב"כ התובע העתק מתעודת האחריות שסופקה לרוכשי ניסן ליף ישירות ממנה, בחודש יוני 2022 (מועד רכישת הרכב על ידי התובע מנתבעת 1), וככל שאין בידיה העתק מתעודת אחריות מחודש זה, נתבעת 2 נדרשה להעביר העתק מתעודת אחריות מתאריך סמוך אחר. Defendant 2 also did not respond to the letter nor did she submit a single document.
• This conduct by both defendants is sufficient to demonstrate extreme bad faith. The defendants were able to respond to the warning letters, detail their claims, and provide the required documents. Thus significantly reducing the dispute and information gaps between the parties., but the defendants chose to exploit their power in order to continue to make it difficult for the plaintiff to exercise his rights, and in doing so, the defendants also violated Section 39 of the Contracts Law. This must be reflected when awarding legal costs..

Mismatch between vehicle delivery date/ownership

• According to the tax invoice given to the plaintiff by Defendant 1, the plaintiff purchased his vehicle on June 2, 2022. This date almost completely corresponds to the date of ownership of the vehicle registered in the vehicle license (attached above) – June 7, 2022.
• On the other hand, a review of the document provided to the plaintiff by Defendant 2 (relating to the period of time required for repair), which is attached above, indicates that the delivery date of the vehicle is December 7, 2021. This data indicates that the vehicle provided to the plaintiff is not a completely new vehicle.
• In one of the plaintiff's conversations with a manager at Defendant 2, it was clarified to him that according to Defendant 2's records, his vehicle was indeed not new and was delivered at a much earlier date than stated in the vehicle's license.
• If the plaintiff had known that he was being sold a vehicle that was not completely new, he would not have made the transaction, and this matter in itself entitles the plaintiff to cancel the transaction.

Cancellation of the oppression agreement dated October 26, 2023

• One of the remedies required in this lawsuit is a declaratory order stating that the plaintiff has lawfully canceled the extortion agreement and/or an order ordering the cancellation of this agreement.
• As detailed above, the plaintiff contacted Defendant 2 and informed her of the cancellation of the extortion agreement and asked to know where he should transfer the sum of 10 thousand shekels that she received from Defendant 2. Defendant 2 did not respond.
• עיון בהסכם העושק יגלה כי תמורת "מחווה מסחרית" התובע נדרש להסכים לוויתור טענות כנגד נתבעת 2, ואף לשמור את תנאי ההסכם בסוד. אם עסקינן במחווה התובע לא צריך להסכים על ויתור זכות כלשהי מזכויותיו, ובטח שלא בנסיבות קיצוניות אלה שבהן רכבו של התובע "מבלה" במוסך נתבעת 2 במשך יותר מחצי שנה, ומועד סיום "הבילוי" נותר בגדר תעלומה.
• פיצוי זעום בסך 10 אלפים שקלים כולל מע"מ במצב שבו רכבו של התובע שהה במוסך עד למועד חתימת הסכם העושק במשך 4 חודשים הוא בגדר עושק כהגדרתו בסעיף 18 לחוק החוזים ו/או התנהלות בחוסר תום לב, תוך כדי ניצול מצוקתו של נהג מונית שאינו יכול להתפרנס ו/או נאלץ לשלם סכומי כסף משמעותיים עבור מונית חלופית, כי רכבו (המונית) "מבלה" כבר חודשים במוסך נתבעת 2.
• נתבעת 2 ניצלה את העובדה שהתובע אינו קורא היטב בעברית, ובכל מקרה אינו מבין היטב טרמינולוגיה משפטית, והוא בוודאי חסר ניסיון בהשוואה לנציגיה המנוסים והממולחים של נתבעת 2, שהצליחו לגרום לו לחתום על הסכמה לקבל "מחווה" בסך 10 אלפים שקלים בלבד (כנגד ויתורים מרחיקי לכת, חריגים וקיצוניים בנסיבות דנן).
• During those 4 months (until the date the agreement was signed), the plaintiff was forced to pay over 25,000 shekels for renting an alternative taxi. The terms of the contract are unreasonably worse than is acceptable under these circumstances., והתובע זכאי לבטל את הסכם העושק. בעניין זה נפסק במסגרת רת"ק 16640-11-21 ק.פ.י קבוצת פיננסים לישראל בע"מ נ' דוד מור (Published in Nevo, January 11, 2022), as follows:

"לא ניתן לקבל בכל מקרה שבו יש פערי כוחות בין צדדים טענה ל"עושק" אלא יש לעמוד בתנאי סעיף 18 Contract Law [General part].

It is necessary to show that this is an exploitation of the caller's distress. Mental or physical weakness or lack of experience And also that the terms of the contract are unreasonably worse than usual.

These are cumulative conditions.. לא די שתנאי החוזה גרועים אלא שההתקשרות היתה כתוצאה מניצול כפי שנקבע בסעיף."

• The representatives of Defendant 2 took advantage of the fact that the plaintiff was in distress. On the one hand, his vehicle was in a garage under the control of Defendant 2 and it is unclear (to this day) when it will be repaired. On the other hand, the plaintiff was forced to pay more and more money for renting a replacement vehicle and/or stop working and thus lose his livelihood. As a taxi driver, these are very significant rental amounts, and far from being negligible. Ultimately, the plaintiff was forced to purchase another replacement vehicle at his own expense. This is a significant financial expense that made things very difficult for the plaintiff.
• The plaintiff's lack of experience in the legal world also worked against him. The representatives of Defendant 2 knew full well that if the plaintiff went to court, he would receive significant financial compensation. On the other hand, the plaintiff lacked this experience and knowledge and was therefore taken advantage of by the representatives of Defendant 2. This is also why Defendant 2 included a confidentiality clause that made it difficult for the plaintiff to examine his rights with third parties.
• In the case in question, the cumulative conditions set forth in Section 18 of the Contracts Law are met.
• Furthermore, a review of the case law will reveal that In much less serious circumstances בתי המשפט פסקו לא פעם פיצוי בסך 50 אלפים שקלים (ראו לדוגמה: ת"א 2449/07 שלמה אנג'ל נ' צ'מפיון מוטורס (ישראל) בע"מ (פורסם בנבו, 9.6.2011); ת"א 9670/00 יהודה יואל מילר נ' יוניון מוטורס בע"מ (Published in Nevo, 10.11.2005)).
• In the cases mentioned in the aforementioned rulings, the court awarded compensation to vehicle owners who were forced to return to the garage for repairs. In those cases, the plaintiffs were not deprived of full and complete use of their vehicles for many months, as in the present case, and yet the courts awarded the plaintiffs monetary compensation in the amount of 50,000 shekels.
• In the case in question, the financial compensation should be significantly high in light of the complete denial of the plaintiff's right to use his vehicle for many months, and to this date it is not known at all when or if his vehicle will be repaired.
• Furthermore, if this claim had been filed before October 26, 2023 (before the signing of the extortion agreement), it is very doubtful whether the court would have awarded the plaintiff, in the circumstances of the present case, financial compensation in the amount of only 10 thousand shekels, between the period of time that his vehicle was in the garage from June to the end of October.

Refusal of the defendants to hand over the documents in their possession

• As detailed above, the plaintiff requested that the two defendants provide all documents in their possession relevant to his vehicle. Defendant 2 was also specifically requested to provide a copy of the warranty certificates provided to purchasers of the Nissan Leaf (the model subject to the lawsuit) in June 2022 or other nearby dates.
• The defendants did not submit a single document and thus did not contribute to reducing the information gaps between the parties and/or simplifying the dispute.
• The plaintiff purchased his vehicle through parallel import from defendant 1. Plaintiff 1 did not receive a warranty certificate from her.
• The purpose of the plaintiff's demand was to discover whether the warranty certificate issued by any of the defendants contains any reference to clauses limiting liability for damages to the vehicle owner. To the extent that it is found that the warranty certificate exists and/or it is claimed that it was delivered to the plaintiff (and it was not!), then in any case these clauses in the warranty certificate (to the extent they exist) constitute prejudicial terms in a uniform contract.

The legal argument

• הפרת חוק החוזים (חלק כללי), תשל"ג – 1973 – The defendants violated the provisions of this law, and, inter alia, the provisions of sections 12, 14, 15, 39. The plaintiff is entitled to cancel the transaction by virtue of sections 14, 15. The plaintiff is entitled to cancel the extortion agreement by virtue of section 18 of the Contracts Law. The plaintiff would never have purchased the vehicle, even at a lower price, if he had known that in order to repair the vehicle he would need to leave it in the garage for months.
• הפרת חוק המכר, תשכ"ח – 1968 – The defendants violated the provisions of this law, including, among others, the provisions of sections 5(a), 6, 11(3), 11(4), 11(5). In addition, the provisions of sections 15-16 of this law apply.
• Violation of the Torts Ordinance [New Version] – The defendants violated sections 35, 36, and 63 of this ordinance. Violation of a statutory duty refers to all of the provisions of the law detailed above and below.
• הפרת חוק רישוי שירותים ומקצועות בענף הרכב, תשע"ו – 2016 – Defendant 2 violated the provisions of this law, and, inter alia, the provisions of sections 138, 139(a), 140.
• מתקיימים התנאים הקבועים בחוק החוזים האחידים, תשמ"ג – 1982 – ככל שאכן קיימת תעודת אחריות המחריגה את אחריות מי מהנתבעות, שהיא בגדר "חוזה אחיד". מתקיימים במקרה דנן, בין היתר, סעיפים 3, 4(1), 4(2), 4(6) לחוק. מכיוון שהנתבעות לא העבירו לתובע ולו מסמך אחד, התובע שומר על זכותו להשלים טיעון בעניין זה בהתאם לטענות שיוכלו בכתבי ההגנה של הנתבעות.

The damage caused to the plaintiff

• התובע רכש רכב שאין הוא יכול לעשות בו שימוש עקב תקלה. נתבעת 2 איננה מסוגלת לתקן את הרכב. בנסיבות אלה התובע זכאי לתשלום בסך שווי הרכב – 126,360 ש"ח. לכך מתווספת הטענה כי על פי נתוני נתבעת 2 נמסר לתובע רכב שאינו חדש והוא זכאי לבטל את העסקה גם מסיבה זו.
• התובע זכאי לפיצויים בסך 100 אלף ש"ח בגין עוגמת נפש אדירה ו/או אי נוחות ו/או טרטורים רבים מאוד ו/או אובדן הנאה מרכבו. כמפורט לעיל, הובאו פסיקות בתי משפט במקרים בהם נפסקו פיצויים בסך 50 אלף שקלים במקרים חמורים הרבה פחות. במקרה הנדון רכבו של התובע שוהה במוסך מזה למעלה מחצי שנה (עד למועד הגשת התביעה) ומועד התיקון בפועל נשאר בגדר תעלומה.
• התובע זכאי להחזר 25,760 ש"ח בגין תשלומים עבור השכרת רכב חלופי לחודשים יולי – ספטמבר 2023.

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.
• לחייב את הנתבעות 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