This argument is ostensibly consistent with the non-controversial determination, and accordingly the determining date for the signing of the TAMA agreement is May 28, 2015 (see paragraph 7 above of the judgment). However, this claim is not accurate. This is because, indeed, the date on which the TAMA agreement was signed by the required majority as well as by the defendant is the specified date, which is the "determining date". However, a TAMA agreement, as opposed to a regular agreement, is an agreement that involves the enlistment of the signatures of apartment owners, and therefore, the apartment owners sign it over a long period of time and not on one date (see in this regard the testimony of Rubinstein on behalf of the defendant, according to which the determining date for signing the TAMA agreement is 2015, on page 61, lines 5-6, and also a discussion that took place between the court and the parties' counsel immediately afterwards on the same page). In light of this, it cannot necessarily be said that the first addendum was signed before the signing of the TAMA agreement, and at least it cannot be said that at the time of signing this addendum, the draft of the TAMA agreement had not already been placed. I will note that support for this determination, and accordingly the commencement of the engagement in the TAMA agreement was long before the date of the completion of its official signature, is found in the fact that there is no dispute - the committee's decision, which was attached to the certificate of a public servant, is dated April 5, 2014, in which the defendant is mentioned as the "permit holder". In accordance with the date of this decision, there can be no dispute that the defendant began handling the permit proceedings much earlier, and therefore, it is only that the beginning of the apartment owners' signing of the TAMA agreement was prior to 2014 and on the date close to the signing of the first addendum. Moreover, the fact that the addendum is connected to the agreement and was signed at the same time as the beginning of its signing, or at least its wording, can be inferred from its name - "an addendum to a TAMA agreement".
- Since the above has been clarified, I will turn to the examination of the first addition, which in my view can be seen as the first support for the uncertainty regarding the possibility of attaching the garden. This addendum explicitly states the defendant's undertaking to: "Enlarge the garden subject to the approval of the municipality to 128 square meters as agreed". In my view, the words "subject to the approval of the municipality" indicate in themselves uncertainty with regard to the possibility of attaching this area. This is because they subject the fulfillment of the obligation to the approval of an external party that is prima facie not under the control of the parties, i.e., the conditions for the fulfillment of the undertaking under condition. Support for this assertion can be found in the testimony of the plaintiff herself, who referred to a similar condition set forth in section 6 - waiting for the opening of a window in the safe room with the approval of the Defense Advisor and the Home Front Command, and explained its meaning on page 46, lines 3-7:
The witness, Ms. Golden: I'm not a lawyer, I've never studied law, so I don't know how to understand these things. I'm just a normative girl who works in marketing, not in law. At Mizrahi-Tefahot Bank, in the marketing division. And I understood this way, if they could open a window or they couldn't open a door, and if they could open a door or not, not then. "Al" L.B.] It will fall the agreement."