If so, then from a practical point of view The burden that would have been imposed on the seller in this context - acting in good faith - is not heavy, since in the circumstances of the case it would have been sufficient to grant a short extension. As determined in relation to an extension granted in the framework of the cancellation of a contract under a non-fundamental breach (Section 7(II) to the Medicines Law) - in our case as well, the extension of the deadline should have been "One that will allow the violator who makes efforts to correct the violation to complete the correction within an extension period" (Shalev and Adar, p. 613. See also Civil Appeal 7021/12 Tenants' Housing on Appeal Taxes N. Yemini, paragraph 13 [Nevo] (March 23, 2014)). Accordingly, and in light of the time periods and dates set by the parties in the agreement (inter alia, the determination that a delay of one week in fulfilling a contractual obligation does not constitute a breach) and the actions taken by the purchasers thereof; And the significant sums of money that were (and are standing) on the agenda and the deterioration that occurred in the relationship between the parties on the one hand - I am of the opinion that all the seller (as the victim) should have done was to wait a few days before exercising the right of cancellation given to him, as part of granting an extension to the purchasers. Even if the seller was of the opinion that granting a short extension would not lead to the purchasers fulfilling the agreement, this does not justify refraining from granting an extension (and it should be clarified, since the seller did not grant any extension, I see no point in dealing with the question of the period of time required for the purchasers to receive the mortgage money, nor even the question of whether it was an update to the mortgage offer or a new application). This is because the granting of an extension does not depend on the question of whether the violation will be corrected at its termination, except, perhaps, in cases where there is no practical logic in granting an extension, due to an objective prevention that the violator has no power to prevent or remove, and it does not depend on the conduct of the injured party (see and compare: Shalev and Adar, at pp. 619-622).
- Finally, and in order not to find the reasoning lacking, it should be clarified that I do not believe that the conduct of the purchasers in relation to the payment of the balance of the consideration (after they were provided with Form 4) justifies changing the general picture that arises from the accumulation of the aforementioned reasons. It should be noted that the trial court noted in the context at hand, in essence, that the purchasers "acted lazily" vis-à-vis the bank; did not transfer to the seller the portion of the equity they planned to pay; did not contact the seller in time for an extension to pay the balance of the consideration; and even refused his compromise proposals. On the other hand, the seller informed the buyers shortly after receiving Form 4 that they must pay the full balance of the consideration; I will not ambush them to cancel the agreement; And it was right to reach agreements even after the agreement was canceled. Against this background, as stated, the trial court was of the opinion that the cancellation of the agreement was done in good faith. I do not believe that this description leads to the conclusion reached by the trial court, all the more so given that most of the weight in this matter should be attributed to the conduct of the seller (as the person who cancelled the contract).
Thus, Even if we assume that the purchasers should have acted more quickly than they did, and at the very least they were required to respond to the seller's request or request an extension in advance, and I do not express a position on this matter one way or the other, the weight of this consideration is particularly little in considering the totality of the matter. This, given that the buyers did not delay in a real way (and certainly not in an exceptional way) in their actions in order to obtain a mortgage - the day after they received Form 4, they contacted the bank; When they saw that the bank's response was being delayed, they contacted him again; They also gave him documents - including on the morning of the day the agreement was cancelled by the seller. This conduct, in my view, does not indicate that the purchasers acted slowly, even if they could have taken additional actions; Certainly taking into account the short time gaps between the date of cancellation of the agreement and the date of payment of the balance of the consideration, and the date on which the purchasers were willing to meet their obligation in relation to the payment of the balance of the consideration.