"When the legislature defined a 'right in real estate,' it chose as a test not the length of the period in which the person actually holds the land nor the buyer's expectations regarding the future, but rather the legal right of the owner of the right, whether it is a right of law or a right of honesty."
See also: The judgment in the appeal that is the subject of the Appeals Committee 13864-04-18 Yehoshua Weiss et al. v. Real Estate Taxation Administration (Center) (August 10, 2020) in paragraph 42.b. to the judgment.
- Hence the application of the law to the facts of the case before us:
As stated, the respondent's position is based on the fact that the appellant signed the lease contract in which the "lease" period was set for 98 years with an option for an additional 98 years.
However, the provisions of the lease contract are withdrawn in the event of a contradiction from the provisions of the Special Conditions Appendix and from the provisions of the building contract.
Therefore, it is necessary to examine whether the construction contract and the appendix to the special conditions contain provisions that contradict the lease period in the lease contract and restrict the duration of the period to a period of less than 25 years.
- I will preface by noting that from the contractual arrangement that the appellant signed after winning the "Buyer's Price" tenders, which are the subject of the appeals in this case, it emerges that the Appellant did not even have any control or discretion as to the period of time during which it could hold the land that is the subject of the aforementioned "Buyer's Price" tenders.
As described at length above, the appellant undertook in the framework of the "Buyer's Price" tenders to build the "Buyer's Price" apartments within the defined and precise time period set in the building contract and in the appendix to the special conditions, and to transfer the apartments to the eligible purchasers.
Section 3.3.1. For the Tirat Carmel tender, it states: