Copied from Nevo On the other hand, in summary, Koffler claimed that even though he signed the brokerage agreement, he did not purchase the property at all, and in any case the condition that binds him to the brokerage fees has not been perfected. At the same time, Kestenbaum and the company he owns claimed that although Kestenbaum was originally interested in purchasing the property jointly with Koffler, at a certain point Koffler was not interested in purchasing the property and negotiations were conducted between them and Bar Yosef, who emphasized that the payment of his fees covered all the costs associated with the purchase of the property, including the brokerage fees. At the same time, Kestenbaum and the company he owns filed a third-party notice against Bar Yosef.
The Magistrate's Court's Judgment
- On March 25, 2024, the Magistrate's Court (Judge Ilan) handed down its judgment in Civil Case 26108-07-19 [Nevo]. The Magistrate's Court divided the hearing of its judgment into three parts: first, the claims of Yaacobi and the company he owns regarding the obligation of Koffler in accordance with the Real Estate Brokers Law, 5756-1996 (hereinafter: the Realtors Law); then the claims of Yaacobi and the company he owns regarding the obligation of Kestenbaum and the company he owns to pay the brokerage fees were discussed; and finally, the claims of Kestenbaum and the company he owns, which were raised in a notice to a third party to Bar Yosef, were discussed.
- First, the court rejected the claims of Yaacobi and the company he owns that Koffler must pay them the brokerage fees in accordance with the Realtors Law.
In this context, the court noted that a brokerage agreement was entered into between Yaacobi and Koffler, and that in this agreement Koffler undertook to pay Yaacobi a brokerage fee of NIS 500,000."Immediately after a binding agreement has been reached between me and/or anyone on my behalf and the other party and/or anyone on its behalf". Subsequently, the court ruled that the conclusion of the agreement between the company owned by Kestenbaum and the owners of the property, which is not in dispute and that the dispute between the parties relates to Koffler's share in the purchase of the property by Kestenbaum. The Magistrate's Court ruled that at the outset, Kestenbaum presented himself as Koffler's attorney and offered to purchase the property in Koffler's name, later Koffler and Kestenbaum discussed the possibility of purchasing the property jointly, and in practice the property was purchased by Kestenbaum alone, through the company he owned. It was determined that Kestenbaum gave Koffler the impression that the chances of purchasing the property were slim since the property was expected to be sold to another buyer, and therefore Koffler announced that he was not interested in purchasing the property. This is despite the fact that in practice the only negotiations that took place at the same time were between Kestenbaum and Bar Yosef. The court ruled that Koffler had no knowledge of these negotiations and that he only learned of Kestenbaum's purchase of the property retroactively, and that his late attempt to integrate into the purchase was unsuccessful.