Admittedly, a conditional contract, certainly a contract that is conditional on a terminating condition (as opposed to a suspended condition), at the time of its conclusion is a complete and binding contract for all intents and purposes. However, this is a contract that has already raised a question mark as to its survival. The survival of the conditional sale agreement is not a result of the conduct of the parties in isolation from and contrary to the contractual agreements, as happens in the case of a breach of the agreement. The survival of a conditional sale agreement is a result of the initial and basic agreements of the parties in the engagement agreement, when it was agreed upon by the parties from the outset that there may be circumstances in which the agreement will not be executed.
There is no reason to detach the realtor from the basic agreements of the parties to the sale agreement. Such a severance is inconsistent with the essence of the brokerage agreement, and with the fact that the broker's right to brokerage fees rests on the sale agreement entered into between the parties and derived from it.
In this regard, see Daniel Friedman and Nili Cohen's book, Contracts (Vol. 3, 2003), 56-57, as follows:
"In case law, the question has arisen more than once whether a realtor who has entered into a conditional contract is entitled to his salary, that is, to brokerage fees. In principle, the answer to this question depends on the interpretation of the brokerage contract. As is well known, the mediator's right to remuneration is usually contingent on the success of the brokerage, i.e., on the fact that the realtor was able to conclude a contract between the parties. However, the question is whether a conditional contract meets this requirement. In case law, it has been said more than once that the realtor receives his salary if he causes a 'binding contract' to be entered into between his client and another person. However, the term 'binding contract' has raised quite a few difficulties. The question may arise in a wide variety of situations in which the contract is not ultimately performed. It is reasonable to assume that the realtor will receive his salary if a binding contract is entered, even if the contract was not performed due to its breach (this, of course, if the brokerage contract does not stipulate otherwise). In such a case, the parties to the contract have an unqualified right to perform it, and even if it is canceled due to the breach, the injured party still has the right to compensation that reflects the value of the performance. The question is more difficult in a case where the contract was canceled due to a defect that existed in it in the first place (such as it was concluded due to fraud or coercion). I am inclined to the opinion that in such a case the realtor should not receive a salary, at least not from that client who is not responsible for the defect...