Civil Case (Herzliya) 52139-06-23 Avichai Bar Or v. Shmuel Cohen

Judgment

A monetary claim in the amount of ILS 790,000 for a claim of breach of a real estate sale agreement, or alternatively for withdrawal from negotiations in bad faith.

The background and summary of the claims in the statement of claim

1. The defendants are the owners of the rights to a private house at 12 Hatzim Street in Herzliya, and those who negotiated with the plaintiffs for the sale of the house.
2. The parties negotiated jointly for about seven months regarding the sale of the house. All the commercial terms of the transaction were agreed, drafts were exchanged between the parties, and the negotiations matured into a binding agreement based on certain finalities reached between the parties.
3. The plaintiffs sent a final and agreed draft of the sale agreement (Appendix 1 to the statement of claim).
4. On December 19, 2022, counsel for the defendants in the transaction, Adv. Adir Lapid (hereinafter - Lapid), announced that the draft sent by the plaintiffs was acceptable to the defendants and that they wished to coordinate a date for signing.
5. The plaintiffs replied that the wording was also accepted by them, and therefore the transaction was perfected, even though the agreement had not yet been signed by all the parties.
6. The plaintiffs requested to coordinate a date for signing on January 1, 2023, but the defendants announced in bad faith that the transaction was canceled, claiming that the plaintiffs had not signed the agreement on that day, even though there was no date for signing the agreement on that day (the exchange of letters was attached as Appendices 2-3 to the claim).
7. The plaintiffs rejected the defendants' claim to cancel the transaction, announced that the transaction was valid and existed, and warned against legal proceedings. Already on December 20, 2022, the plaintiffs signed the sale agreement, gave Adv. Lapid a copy of it, and also gave him checks for the first payment (a copy of Adv. Lapid's confirmation of receipt of the signed agreement and the checks were attached as Appendix 5 to the claim).
8. On December 21, 2022, the defendants sent the plaintiffs a letter acknowledging that a sale agreement had been made, but raised additional requirements as a condition for signing, such as the bank's approval of financing a loan (Appendix 6). They also claimed that the plaintiffs did not show up for the signature, even though such a meeting was not coordinated between the parties at all.  Although the plaintiffs were not obliged to present the bank's approval, they did, and coordinated a meeting with defendant 1, who did not bother to appear for the meeting.
9. The defendants breached the agreement by not signing it or the documents accompanying the agreement and thwarted the transaction.
10. The plaintiffs announced the cancellation of the agreement due to the fundamental breach committed by the defendants and demanded the agreed compensation that appears in the sale agreement. Alternatively, the plaintiffs are demanding compensation for the breach of the duty of good faith in the negotiations.

Summary of the arguments in the statement of defense

11. No agreement has been concluded between the parties and there is no signed agreement. The draft that was attached here is partial and does not reveal any agreement between the parties.  Not all of the defendants were familiar with the draft.
12. Lapid ceased and was negligent in giving the notice Appendix 2 to the lawsuit, and did so on his own. The message was not coordinated with all sellers.  He also ceased to receive the agreement and checks from the plaintiffs, contrary to the instructions of one of the sellers.
13. The draft is not a final version that is acceptable to all sellers. Lapid did not meet with all the sellers and did not explain to them the significance of the transaction.
14. The draft lacks some discretion and discretion. It does not contain details, including a date on each page, the defendants' signature, appendices to the draft, and it does not state that one of the defendants lives on the property.  The transaction was not executed and was not reported to the tax authorities.  The consideration was not paid and the Israel Land Authority did not receive approval for the transaction.  The plaintiffs attached a document to a draft that was not agreed upon (liability regarding the absence of construction irregularities).  Appendix 6 to the claim is not a letter on behalf of the defendants, but was written by defendant 1 only, on his own initiative.
15. A reply was submitted by the plaintiffs in which they claimed, inter alia, that Adv. Lapid acted on behalf of the defendants, as did defendant 1.

So far the arguments of the parties.

16. The parties submitted evidence: on behalf of the plaintiffs, an affidavit of the main witness was submitted by plaintiff 1 and an affidavit on their behalf by Adv. Tomer Balaish, who represented the plaintiffs in the transaction (hereinafter - Balaish). In addition, an expert opinion was submitted on behalf of the real estate appraiser, Mr. Gilad Peer.

On behalf of the defendants, the affidavits of defendants 1, 2, 5 and 6 were filed.