00 Subsequently, Kestenbaum and the company he owns claim that given that the sale agreement in which they actually entered into is substantially different from the transaction discussed in the brokerage agreement, the decisive condition in the brokerage agreement was in fact not fulfilled at all.
0
At the same time, Kestenbaum and the company he owns claim that the District Court's ruling is based on a claim of partnership between Koffler and Kestenbaum, which was not claimed in the statement of claim at all, and was not discussed in the Magistrate's Court's ruling. Kestenbaum and the company he owns claim that in fact, the partnership claim was implicitly rejected in the Magistrate's Court's ruling, which ruled that Koffler, who signed the brokerage agreement, was not a partner in the purchase of the property at all and therefore is not liable for the brokerage fees. Moreover, since there is no dispute that the property was purchased by Kestenbaum and the company he owns without Koffler's knowledge, it is clear that Koffler was not a partner in this purchase at all. Similarly, Kestenbaum and the company he owns claim that the claim of emissary, on which the Magistrate's Court based its judgment, was also not made in the statement of claim.
It should be noted that at the same time as the application for leave to appeal, Kestenbaum and the company he owns filed a motion to delay the execution of the District Court's ruling.
Respondents' Answers
- In my decision of February 18, 2025, I instructed the respondents to submit a response to the request for leave to appeal, as well as to the request to stay the execution of the judgment.
- In their response to the request for leave to appeal, Yaacobi and the company he owns argued that the application for leave to appeal should be rejected, since there is no legal question that deviates from the interests of the parties and no miscarriage of law has been caused.
Yaacobi and the company he owns further argue that the applicants' argument that the sale transaction that was ultimately signed is different from the one that was the focus of the brokerage agreement should be rejected. This is because this is a factual argument that is an expansion of the front and which was raised for the first time in the framework of the summaries of the Kestenbaum and the company he owns in the Magistrate's Court; that the courts below rejected this argument on its merits; and that there is no stipulation in the brokerage agreement that the transaction to be entered into will be in the format discussed at the time of signing the brokerage agreement.