Third, in my view, it is highly doubtful whether the respondent can claim on behalf of the state that it would have been satisfied with compensation of NIS 450,000 for not selling the "Buyer's Price" apartment to an eligible purchaser and would not have demanded the cancellation of the agreement, since, as we have reiterated and we have both repeated, "Buyer's Price" tenders are not similar to regular ILA tenders, and they are intended to enable the purchase of an apartment at a discounted price for the homeless, when the timing of the purchase of the apartment and its receipt by the eligible purchaser is one of the main principles of the "Buyer's Price" project and a central basis for its realization. It is clear that it is not to be expected that an eligible purchaser who won the lottery will wait decades to receive an apartment at a discounted price, since this omits a central element of this plan.
- As I have already noted above, the fact claimed by the ILA's representative, Mr. Yaakov, in his affidavit, that the ILA sometimes granted extensions for the fulfillment of the terms of the "Buyer's Price" tender, does not change my conclusion, since this is a matter of discretion, beyond the letter of the law, and not the legal situation set forth in the relevant set of agreements. In any case, there is no doubt that any extension of the deadline that was not granted by the ILA exceeds only a few months, and in any event, it is inconceivable that a case in which the date for the sale of a "Buyer's Price" apartment has been extended, or will be extended, for a period of more than 25 years.
- Even the argument raised by the Respondent that the sale of the "Buyer's Price" apartments during the periods of time they were sold, stems from its obligations to the lending bank and not from the stipulations set out in the array of agreements signed by the State – I cannot accept.
As explained at great length above, the question of the existence or absence of a "right in real estate" within the meaning of the Real Estate Taxation Law derives from the entirety of the legal agreements signed between the entity granting the rights (the state) and the receiver of the rights (the appellant), and not from external agreements, vis-à-vis a financing entity. The Golem should not be built on its creator. Financing depends on the contractual system, and not the other way around, and it certainly does not define the nature of the right being sold. Moreover, if the contractual array forces the appellant to sell the "Buyer's Price" apartments within a period not exceeding 48 months from the date of winning the tender, then the financing will be adjusted to the said contractual framework.