Law Office
Main Number: 2019/1917
Decision Number: 2019/513
“Text of Justice”
COURT: First Instance Court
At the conclusion of the trial of the case for the cancellation of the objection between the parties, the file was reviewed following the objection filed by the parties’ attorneys within the appeal period against the decision to dismiss the case, in line with the reasons given for the decision.
DECISION –
The plaintiffs’ attorney, the deceased client… and the defendant contractor signed a construction contract on 03/19/2010 in exchange for a share of the land, the defendant did not deliver the apartments in accordance with Article 17 of the contract, unjustifiably objected to the proceedings initiated against the defendant, demanded rental compensation and late payment interest based on the contract, and filed a lawsuit for the cancellation of the objection and the collection of compensation from the defendant. The defendant’s
attorney argued that although his client had completed the construction and offered to deliver it, the plaintiffs did not respond to the offer, that the other property owners had no objections regarding defects and deficiencies, that the building was open for occupancy, and that there were even tenants in some apartments, and requested that
the lawsuit be dismissed. According to the scope of the lawsuit, the defense, and the entire file, it must be accepted that the landowners delivered the land suitable for construction on August 18, 2010, and therefore the completion date of the construction was September 18, 2011; therefore, there is no justification for the landowner to refuse delivery due to deficiencies without accepting delivery. and therefore, they can claim the work fees up to December 2011. The lawsuit was dismissed on the grounds that no claim could be made for January 2012 and beyond.
The parties’ attorneys appealed the decision.
1- Based on the documents in the file, the evidence on which the decision is based, and the compelling reasons, and since there is no error in the evaluation of the evidence, all objections of the defendant’s attorney are deemed inappropriate.
2- The contractor must perform the work in accordance with the zoning, project, and contract on the date specified in the construction contract in exchange for the land share. The landowner cannot be forced to accept a structure with deficiencies or defects.
In the present case, according to the response dated January 23, 2012, the landowner is justified in not accepting the independent section due to the alleged deficiencies. Since these deficiencies were subsequently remedied by the contractor and no new notice regarding delivery was issued, it is incorrect for the court to dismiss the case on erroneous grounds, as it should have determined the period of delay and the rent.
CONCLUSION: All objections of the defendant’s attorney are rejected for the reasons explained in paragraph (1) above; the plaintiff has 15 days from the notification of the decision to appeal, while the defendant does not.
Decided unanimously on February 18, 2019.