As for conditional contracts, I am of the opinion that in a contract that is conditional on suspension conditions, the broker should not be entitled to his salary if the condition is not met, so that the contract has expired (provided that the brokerage contract does not imply otherwise). This is despite the fact that in other respects the contract is complete and valid. The reason for this is that as long as the condition is not met, the client is not entitled to realize the goal he has set for himself (normally, the sale or purchase of an asset). ...
The status of the broker seems to be more robust in the case of a contract that is conditional on a terminating condition. However, I am inclined to a similar interpretation regarding such a contract as well. If the condition was met, so that the contract expired and the client could not realize his purpose, there is prima facie no reason to entitle the broker to his salary (unless the brokerage contract does not imply otherwise). Although theoretically the client had a right to perform the contract upon its conclusion, this right was conditional, and if the condition was fulfilled in a way that expropriates the customer's right to what he requested, I am of the opinion that there is no reason to charge him with brokerage fees. As we have seen, the difference between a terminating term contract and a suspension contract is quite subtle and may be cut according to the way a clause is worded. Therefore, it seems to me that there should be no difference in terms of the right of the realtor between the two options."
See also Cell (Tel Aviv) 26329-07-15 Amitai v. Tadmor (published [Nevo], January 29, 2017) and appeal against the rejected judgment (Civil Appeal (Tel Aviv District) 56743-02-17) [Nevo].
- The conclusion from the aforesaid so far is that in view of the fulfillment of the terminating condition and the cancellation of the conditional sale agreement, the plaintiff is not entitled to brokerage fees in respect of the conditional sale agreement.
Therefore, the conclusion is also required that the fact that the defendants did not pay the plaintiff brokerage fees for the conditional sale agreement does not constitute a breach of the exclusivity agreement, since during the exclusivity period no agreement was entered into by virtue of which the plaintiff is entitled to brokerage fees. This will have an impact on the plaintiff's claim for agreed compensation for breach of the exclusivity agreement, which will be discussed below.
- At the end of this chapter, I will refer to the plaintiff's claim that the defendants concealed from him that a conditional sale agreement had been signed. I do not accept the argument.
From Appendix 9 to the plaintiff's main testimony affidavit, it appears that as early as April 11, 2023, the defendant gave the plaintiff a document in which it was written that the plaintiff confirms that he had received the full consideration for brokering the sale of the house, and that he had no additional demands. In other words, it is clear that at that time the defendants did not conceal from the plaintiff that a sale agreement had been signed, and even sought to arrange the payment of the brokerage fees.