When I come to apply the aforementioned determination to our case, it was found that Munir does not have a written agreement as required by section 8 of the Land Law, which would establish the conclusion that Munir had a real estate transaction with Jareis and the rest of his brothers. In addition, the claim that there was some kind of accounting between Munir and Jerais was not expressed at all in the registry, such as by registering a warning note. It has not been proven that Hajj knew that there was a reckoning between Munir and Jarais and what its scope was at each stage. Therefore, we do not have before us a situation of conflicting transactions, and Hajj's right is preferable to Munir's alleged right. It should be noted that in the previous proceeding, it was determined that Hajj knew that the division was in accordance with M/8 and not M/10. There was no determination as to his knowledge of the reckoning between Munir and Jerais and its scope.
- This calculation cannot be called a transaction because it is a long-term calculation, which is more similar to a relationship agreement than to a discrete transaction agreement (an analogy drawn from labor law, in which employment agreements are viewed as long-term relationship agreements, as opposed to a single transaction. In this regard, see: High Court of Justice 8111/96 The New Histadrut v. Israel Aerospace Industries in a Tax Appeal (02.06.2004); Labor Appeal (National) 68281-02-19 Joseph Busani v. Hakochav Metal Valve Industries Company (1987) in a Tax Appeal (23.02.2020) ; Labor Dispute (Tel Aviv Areas) 25902-11-16 Tehila Peleg v. Tel Aviv-Yafo Municipality (01.09.2020); For reference to relationship agreements in other contexts, such as a tenancy contract in a nursing home, see, for example: Civil Appeal Authority 1185/97 Heirs and Executors of the Estate of the Late Milgrom Hinda v. Mishan Center (Nevo, June 9, 1998). Applicability Section 9 In my opinion, the Real Estate Law requires the existence of a single transaction, and agreements of the type of relationship agreements - which reflect a dynamic and changing long-term engagement - are not appropriate for the application of the framework of conflicting transactions. On the other hand, a discrete transaction agreement establishes a defined transaction that is delimited in time and place, as opposed to a long-term calculation that begins and ends with who we are.
To illustrate Munir's problematic argument, with the help of which he seeks to overcome the transaction between Hajj and Jerais, one can find the transaction that was made in 2018, after the filing of the lawsuit in the previous proceeding (filed in 2014), in which 500 square meters of Munir's rights were sold to Mr. Maher Nasser. Munir claimed in paragraph 14.3 of his affidavit that this was in fact a transaction in which the real sellers were the late Jarayes and the brother Afif in equal parts, even though at that stage Munir already knew that Jareis had sold Hajj rights without informing him, and had even filed a lawsuit to cancel the transaction. This did not prevent him, in the midst of the investigation of the previous lawsuit, from continuing to cooperate with Jereis and to execute another transaction in which Munir gives of his rights for Jerais. Therefore, this conduct is in bad faith, and it is justified to place the responsibility for it on both Munir and Jerais.