The appeal against the judgment was filed before us.
The appeal at hand and the proceedings before this court
- The purchasers did not accept the judgment of the trial court, and on August 17, 2023, they filed the appeal in question. Alongside the appeal, a request was also filed to delay the execution of the judgment. On August 20, 2023, I ordered a temporary delay in the execution of the judgment until another decision, so that the buyers will continue to live in the apartment and the seller will be prohibited from making any disposition in the apartment; And on December 28, 2023, after holding a hearing in the presence of the parties, I determined that the temporary order would become a temporary order (i.e., an order pending a decision on the appeal).
- As part of the appeal, the buyers reiterate that the agreement was illegally canceled. They base this on two main arguments: first, that failure to pay the balance of the consideration on time does not constitute a fundamental breach of the agreement; The second is that the seller canceled the contract in bad faith.
In relation toThe first argument, the purchasers are of the opinion that the failure to pay the balance of the consideration is a breach that can be easily corrected, and therefore does not amount to a fundamental breach. With respect to a fundamental violation Agreed, it was argued that clause 18 of the agreement states that the obligation in relation to the payment of the consideration is "Thorough Commitment, but does not determine that a breach of this undertaking constitutes "Fundamental violation" - while elsewhere it was clearly stated that another breach would constitute a fundamental breach (section 7 of the appendix, regarding the undertaking to receive Form 4 within 12 months); and another clause in the agreement establishes a compensation mechanism For late payment. Moreover, the purchasers are of the opinion that an interpretation according to which any slight breach of payment dates amounts to a fundamental breach, is contrary to the business purpose of the agreement and the desire of the parties to fulfill it. With respect to a fundamental violation Probably., it was claimed that this was not a violation that if a reasonable person had anticipated it and its results in advance, he would not have entered into an agreement. This, inter alia, in view of the significant delay on the part of the seller in receiving Form 4, in contrast to the slight delay of the purchasers in payment; When it comes to intertwined charges, so that the delay in receiving Form 4 affects the date of payment of the balance of the consideration; Given that in any case, not every delay of a few days amounts to a fundamental violation. It was further claimed, Because In the framework of examining the thoroughness of the (probable) infringement, considerations of justice must be addressed, and these support the position of the purchasers.