In a regular tender, the developer is required to build on the land, but he is the one who controls and determines the date of the sale of the apartments to third parties, at his discretion and according to his wishes. Moreover, a developer who has won a regular ILA tender can decide that he is not selling the apartments he has built, but rather owns them for his own needs, or rents them out, or acts in relation to them at his discretion, without the intervention of the state, inter alia, in the expectation that the price of the apartments will increase and his profit will increase accordingly. As stated, in the case before us, not only can the contractor not decide to keep the apartments in his hands for an additional period in order to benefit from an increase in their value, but he also has no economic advantage in doing so. The opposite is true – if he delays the sale of the apartments, he will suffer a loss, since the price of the apartments will not change, while the financing costs will continue to weigh heavily on his shoulders.
- Moreover, from the testimony of the ILA's representative, Mr. Yaakov, who testified on behalf of the respondent, it clearly emerges that even according to the ILA's approach, the appellant is not entitled to demand the existence of a lease for a period of more than 25 years, nor is it entitled to enforce it. See the transcript of the transcript on page 113, line 2 to page 115:
"Q: Let's take page 335 and the flow chart there, let's say that, I'm now talking about a hypothetical scenario that I want to present to you that there is some kind of tender that "Ashdar" won for the sake of the example and the date comes and the control company holds the lottery, the homeless winner chooses the apartment, is invited to an information conference and the date arrives on that page 335 finally sells the apartment and according to what is written here 14 days from the date of the sale of the apartments, he actually has to sign a sales contract with "Ashdar", Right? That's what it says here.