In this situation, since the seller's breach of contract has created uncertainty among the purchasers that goes beyond the contractual risk division with respect to the date on which they will be required to fulfill the obligation to pay the balance of the consideration, the principle of good faith obligates him, as we have seen (paragraph 39 above), to cooperate with the purchasers in a manner that will enable them to fulfill their share. In the circumstances of the case, this cooperation should have been carried out by way of granting an extension to the fulfillment of the agreement (payment of the balance of the consideration).
- Moreover, when we examine the matter from the point of time from the date of the cancellation of the agreement, it appears that the delay that was expected on the part of the purchasers until they paid the balance of the consideration is only a slight delay. Thus, the buyers contacted the bank in order to receive the mortgage the day after receiving Form 4; And on November 1, 2021 - the day after the cancellation of the agreement - they were given approval in principle regarding the receipt of the mortgage, and in this framework the bank even indicated that the payment would be transferred within only 2 business days after completing the required documents (and these were transferred to the seller for him to sign, but he refused to do so). In fact, not only was the apparent delay short, but it follows from this description that the purchasers were willing to correct the violation as soon as possible, by receiving the mortgage money, and then the balance of the consideration would be paid to the seller (on the importance of these figures for our purposes, see: Cementkel, at pp. 522-523 and 525; Shalev and Adar, at p. 682).
Admittedly, at a certain point the purchasers requested in negotiations with the seller that the balance of the consideration be paid within 5 business days, but it appears that this request was made in order to create a "margin of caution" for them, lest there be another slight delay that is beyond their control, which could have led to the cancellation of the agreement (in accordance with the drafts that were transferred between the parties, and described above). In any event, in the circumstances of the case, even a delay of 5 business days is considered in my opinion only a slight delay - taking into account that the seller did not prove, and in fact did not even claim, that such a delay would have caused him significant financial damages, if at all; And this without underestimating the significant financial amount of the balance of the consideration, which also constitutes the majority of the consideration for the apartment (and compare: Civil Appeal Authority 1233/91 Jerbi v. Ben DavidIsrSC 45(5) 661, 668 (1991)).