Where a maximum price per square meter of an apartment is determined, the appellant can only move within the range defined for it by the state, between the reduced price set for the purchase of the land and the maximum price of an apartment square meter. The fixation of the price of an apartment square meter, combined with the fact that the price of the land is a known and fixed figure, leads to the fact that the appellant's profit margin is fixed, and in practice – even if there is an increase in the prices of apartments, or if the value of the land increases – the appellant does not benefit from it. In the same way, the appellant does not lose from the decline in the price of the apartment or the decrease in the value of the land.
Therefore, the concept of the "Buyer's Price" tender leads to the result that the appellant does not in fact have a real economic connection with the land that it allegedly "leased" – with an increase in its value or with changes in it. This result is inconsistent with the essence of the acquisition of a "lease right" in real estate. In fact, this result optimally characterizes the economic right that exists in the hands of the person who provides construction services to the landowner, i.e., the executing contractor. His economic enjoyment is not from the land itself. His only and exclusive pleasure is from the construction, and from the profit he derives from that construction.
Moreover, and as explained above, since this is a "rigid" and precise construction specification, the ability of the winning contractor to offer a better price in the tender than its competitors (i.e., a lower selling price to those eligible) depends mainly on its ability to bear lower construction overheads than those of the competitors.
- Hence, the real legal essence of the engagement between the State and the Appellant is that of an engagement with an executing projector, which constitutes the long hand of the State, when the payment to such a projector is reflected in the gap between the price of the land and the price per square meter of an apartment offered by the Appellant in the "Buyer's Price" tender. The fact that the consideration for the appellant, the projector, is not paid by the building commissioner – the State, but by another party, so to speak, a third party – the purchaser of the apartment, who is entitled to a "Buyer's Price" apartment, does not raise or lower the real legal essence, where the identity of that "third party" is also determined by the State, the building client, and the price – is also determined by the State.
I will emphasize that in my opinion, this result is inherent to the essence of the "Buyer's Price" project. As noted and detailed in the chapter dealing with the purpose and essence of the "Buyer's Price" program, the state created and established the "National Flag Project" in order to solve the long-standing housing crisis, and its goal was to increase the supply of existing apartments for those who are eligible and to enable affordable housing for the homeless at a reduced price.