The court noted that its legal reasoning differed slightly from that of the Magistrate's Court. The District Court ruled that Kestenbaum's obligation to pay the brokerage fees Derives from being Partner of Koffler at the time of the brokerage agreement, even if not at the time of the purchase of the property. In this context, the District Court relied on the determinations of the Magistrate's Court according to which Kestenbaum and Koffler "Be partners in everything related to your intentions to purchase the property", and the clear position of Kestenbaum and the company he owns in the framework of the appeal when they repeatedly emphasized that Kestenbaum was "Presumed to be a partner and not as a representative" by Koffler. The District Court ruled that this partnership obligates all the partners to pay the brokerage fees, by virtue of the brokerage agreement, to the extent that the property is purchased.
The District Court noted that inCivil Appeal 3384/16 Mizrahi v. Berkowitz [Nevo] (July 5, 2018) (hereinafter: Mizrahi Matter) It was emphasized that care must be taken in making the written requirement flexible regarding brokerage agreements. However, the District Court ruled that in the Mizrahi This refers to someone who joined as a partner of a party to the brokerage agreement, after it was concluded, whereas at the time of the conclusion of the brokerage agreement, there was no partnership or mission relationship. The District Court ruled that in our case, on the other hand, at the time of the conclusion of the brokerage agreement, Koffler and Kestenbaum were partners, so there is no reason not to obligate Kestenbaum and the company he owns to pay the obligations of the brokerage agreement.
At the same time, the court rejected the claim of Kestenbaum and the company he owns that Kestenbaum was not aware of the amount of the brokerage fees, since this argument contradicts the Magistrate's Court's factual determinations based on the evidence before it, including the parties' testimonies, and therefore there is no room to interfere with them. The argument of Kestenbaum and the company he owns was also rejected that the brokerage agreement was conditional on the amount of consideration to be paid for the property, since this argument constitutes an extension of the front and contradicts other claims made by Kestenbaum and the company he owns, and factual findings determined by the Magistrate's Court. In this context, the court noted that in light of Kestenbaum's familiarity with the brokerage agreement, he could have explicitly stipulated the brokerage fees on any condition, but did not do so. In addition, the court rejected the argument of Kestenbaum and the company he owns that it is unlikely that they will be charged brokerage fees and (cumulative) fees at the rate of NIS 1,000,000, when the amount of consideration is NIS 2,500,000. This was because these data were known to Kestenbaum, and he nevertheless chose to enter into this deal, apparently because he saw it as a sufficiently worthwhile deal.