Subsequently, it was stipulated in clause 10 of the second agreement as follows:
"The seller, Mr. Suhail Diab, undertakes to present a land registry certificate attesting to the registration of the rights in his name, in the land, no later than June 15, 2012" (emphasis in original)
- It therefore appears that the second agreement uses clear language of achieving a certain result (registering the rights in the name of the seller-defendant) up to a certain date, and there is nothing in it that can attest to the fact that it is an obligation to make an effort. In this regard, see CA 3849/09 Har Negev Investments Construction and Development Ltd. Baruch Weber [Nevo] (July 6, 2014), in which it was held that the following matters are also relevant to our case:
"The language of clause 11(a) of the contract is clear, and it leaves no doubt that the obligation that the company has undertaken is a consequence obligation and not an obligation to make an effort. The clause states that the registration of the rights will be "done" by the company. This formulation indicates a commitment to do something, to perform an action that ends up achieving a certain result. In this case, we are dealing with an undertaking to register the ownership rights of the purchasers in the apartment within a certain period of time (...). The clause does not state that the company will "do everything in its power" or "make every reasonable effort" to bring about the registration of the rights within a certain period of time. Such wording, if it had appeared in the contract, would have indicated a commitment to try, to make an effort, to act as much as possible, but not to a commitment to achieve a certain result. However, as stated, this is not the wording that appears in the contract, and the language of clause 11(a) of the contract does not provide a minimal anchor to the company's claim that it is obligated to act to the best of its ability and nothing more" (ibid., paragraph 42)
On this matter for more, see the judgment in CA 6553/11 Estate of the late Yosef Berles v. Paz-Yam Holdings 2000 [Nevo] (December 29, 2013), in which it was similarly held that "the deceased's undertaking to bring about the registration of the main lease right in the name of M.S.I. is an undertaking to achieve a result, the failure of which constitutes a breach of contract" (ibid., para. 15).