The duty of good faith also requires that just as the plaintiff is not entitled to brokerage fees where the conditional sale agreement has not been executed, he will be entitled to remuneration if at the end of the day the engagement has been executed.
- On the basis of the above, I have reached the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to a brokerage fee of 2% plus a tax appeal from the consideration determined in the second sale agreement - ILS 10,500,000, which is a total of ILS 210,000 plus Ltd., antitrust ILS 247,800.
- The defendants claim that it was agreed between the parties in the framework of the amended exclusivity agreement that the plaintiff will be entitled to brokerage fees only in the event that the house is sold for an amount of more than ILS 11,000,000. When the house was sold for ILS 10,500,000, the plaintiff is not entitled to brokerage fees.
I do not accept the argument.
The defendants rely on WhatsApp correspondence between the parties dated February 17, 2023 and February 20, 2023. In a correspondence dated February 17, 2023, the defendant writes: "I explained to you that 11 was my tendency." To this, the plaintiff responds: "My 11th heart is pure that you did ask and promised to do everything possible to get there."
On February 20, 2023, the defendant writes: "The minimum for me is 11 million that we agreed," and the plaintiff replies: "I will make sure to navigate so that after my commission the client will pay a sum of 11 million that you will have left (before taxes, of course).
The amended exclusivity agreement (as well as the original one) does not speak, even a hint, that the plaintiff will be entitled to brokerage fees only in the event that the sale price exceeds the sum of ILS 11 million.
The WhatsApp correspondence between the parties also does not indicate an agreement to change the exclusivity agreement. At most, we can learn from the plaintiff's words that he "promised to do everything possible to get there" and that he would "make sure to navigate..." about the obligation to make an effort on his part (and as he said in his testimony on page 17: "My intention is that I will make all the efforts"). The obligation to make an effort does not require achieving a result. In any event, this charge has no significance where the plaintiff was not involved in the conclusion of the sale agreement and was not given the opportunity to "steer" the price.