the damages, the fact that the appellants received an apartment in an area considerably larger than agreed.
- The positions of the parties at this point are polar.. The appellants maintain that they are entitled to compensation in the value of a subsidiary apartment 100 square meters in the area discussed in the contract. According to them, the excess area they received in the roof apartment constitutes a privilege, which does not affect the calculation of the damage caused to the appellants.
- I cannot accept this position. The agreement between the appellants and the company is an agreement
Commercial. It is difficult to accept that in the framework of a commercial transaction, the company agreed, for no reason, to transfer to the appellants a real estate asset that is close to half of the property that was agreed upon, and whose value is certainly significantly greater than the value of the property that was in front of the parties at the time of the conclusion of the agreement. It is inconceivable that the company did so, with the agreement that this fact will not be taken into account in any way in determining whether and to what extent the company met its contractual obligations to the appellants. The argument that this would have been inconsistent with the purpose of the engagement as a commercial engagement (for the economic purpose of the transaction as a criterion in the interpretation of a contract, see Civil Appeal 6276/95 Bach Towers in Tax Appeal v. Contract, Supreme Laws No. 254). Indeed, solid and convincing evidence is required to substantiate the claim that the company intended to bestow on the appellants such a significant benefit, without consideration or explanation whatsoever. No such evidence was presented.
- Moreover, this argument of the appellants is inconsistent with the provision of section 5
To the contract. This provision details the original consideration that the appellants were supposed to receive - three apartments in a building to be built by the company on the plot that the appellants sold to the company - and it was determined at the end as follows: