The concept of "realization of rights" is defined in the first section of the Third Addendum. This is according to which of the three alternatives – the last of which is of interest to us:
| "1. Interpretation | (a) | In this addendum: | |
| 'Exercise of rights' in real estate – one of the following: | |||
| (1) | ... | ||
| (2) | ... | ||
| (3) | Transferring them or transferring the lease to future generations, in whole or in part, or granting rights therein that require registration in the Land Registers, with or without consideration, but with the exception of a transfer by virtue of law anda transfer without consideration from a person to his relative..." (emphases added). | ||
"Relative" was defined in the first section: "spouse, parent, parent [of] parent, descendant or descendant of the spouse, brother and their spouses" (emphasis added). Thus, there are two cumulative conditions for postponing the date of payment: Transfer of rights No Compensation; Among whom, defined in the law "Relatives".
There is no dispute that the defendants in this case, a brother and a sister, are relatives. Therefore, the discussion in this case focuses on one and only question: Was the transfer of rights between the defendants done in consideration or not?
- The transfer of rights in the property without consideration is a "gift," in the sense of In section 1(a) To the Gift Law, 5728-1968: "A gift is the acquisition of an asset without consideration." The legal literature has dealt extensively with the question of consideration in the context of a gift, and the matter has been summarized by Mordechai A. Rabilo The Gift Law, 1968: An Interpretation of the Laws of Contracts by G. Tedeschi (1996). Already in the introductory chapter, the matter was clarified:
"The necessary elements of the Israeli gift contract are the absence of synallagma, or the lack of correlation between the performance of the giver and the receiver, and the free provision made with the consent of the parties...