In the Israeli business world, a quick response is not just a question of courtesy - it is an integral part of the discourse. When a client sends a draft at noon, he expects to receive a response by evening. The pace is perceived as a means of expressing seriousness, commitment and efficiency and two days of silence may already be interpreted as a clear sign of disinterest. When this clock meets the of Latin-American pace this sometimes creates cultural clashes - not in words, but in approach - that are not always visible, but may determine the fate of the deal, sometimes not less that misconstruing nuances of the language.
In Latin America, negotiation is not merely a technical stage, but a social process. It has a different pace - slower, softer, but sometimes even deeper. A business meeting does not open with a spreadsheet but with coffee and a personal conversation. A reply after three days is not perceived as disrespect but as a legitimate pace of communication, and sometimes even a fast one. The basic assumption is that a deal is built first and foremost on a personal relationship and only afterwards on documents. And precisely because of this, the agreement must speak the language of culture, not just the legal language.
Such a situation exists in all areas of business connected to Latin America, whether in large or small companies, and it demonstrates how cultural differences affect the timelines for closing a deal, conducting negotiations, and sometimes even simpler processes.
More than once have we seen Israelis interpret silence as a lack of seriousness, while their Latin partners feel that Israeli intensity crosses the boundaries of good taste and is aggressive. Even legal wording that seems "clear" in Hebrew or English may be perceived as rigid or confrontational when translated into a different mentality. Therefore, a good agreement in an international transaction is not only the result of precision, but of accurate cultural translation. Thus, for example, in a case we recently handled, an Israeli client requested to include in the agreement a strict supply clause stating that "the product shall be delivered within seven business days of the day of order, and if not, this shall be deemed a fundamental breach allowing the termination of the agreement." The Argentinian counterparty signed the clause without argument, but in practice, the supply was delayed by four days beyond such limit. From the Argentinian side this was not considered an issue, but the Israeli viewed it as a casus belli. Only after we mediated between the parties was it agreed to update the mechanism so that it would include advance notice, a reasonable grace period and a clarification that "reasonable commercial effort" would be suffice for compliance with the condition. The new agreement was more appropriate for both and created mechanisms that enabled the deal to be fulfilled rather than lead to conflict, as both parties wanted the deal. However, such deals often blow up without an expert who knows how to mediate between the "clocks" and the cultures.
Moreover, different perceptions of time may significantly impact the interpretation of legal terms in agreements. For example, Section 7(b) of the Israeli Contracts Law (Remedies for Breach of Contract), 1970, states that in the case of a non-material breach of contract, the breaching party must allow the other "reasonable time" to remedy the breach before the agreement may be terminated. The term "reasonable time" is subject to interpretation and can vary depending on context and local culture. Particularly in international transactions, such as those between Israel and Latin America, the term must be understood not only according to objective criteria but also in light of the different perceptions of time within each culture. These cultural differences may influence the expectations of the parties and lead to misunderstandings or different interpretations of the agreement terms.
At the end of the day, time may be money, but sometimes it is part of the cost of doing business. A law firm with experience in business between Israel and Latin America does not deal only with the language of the contract but also acts as a cultural mediator. It facilitates communication, identifies the parties' intentions beyond the wording, and ensures that the business strategies are adapted to the local context. No less importantly, it knows how to draft the documents so that they reflect the true intent of the parties and not just what seems correct on paper. In this manner, the risk of misunderstandings is reduced, and the chances of success in the market increase significantly.