The plaintiff's interpretation did indeed refer to the condition in section 6, but taking into account that both the condition regarding the opening of the window and the condition regarding the size of the garden were used in the same words: "subject to approval" - it is clear that the same interpretation should be adopted with respect to both.
To the condition set out in section 7, the provisions of section 8 are also added to the same addendum, and accordingly "the failure to receive the approvals to open the window and enlarge the apartment shall not constitute grounds for canceling the agreement and/or receiving any discount/compensation".
I will begin by noting, with regard to this provision, that according to the defendant, the word "the apartment" in this section originated from a clerical error and was recorded instead of the words "the garden" (see paragraphs 33-39 of Rubinstein's affidavit on behalf of the defendant). Support for this argument can be found in a harmonious reading of the addition itself - since there is no dispute that the addition does not mention the enlargement of an apartment, but deals only with the enlargement of the garden. To this, it should be added that although the parties considered the wording of the first addendum to be binding and not the draft of the first addendum (as defined above in section 6 of the judgment), it is possible to make use of the provisions of the draft for the purpose of interpretation. An examination of this, in section 5, shows that a provision similar to the provision set out in section 8 of the first addendum also exists in the draft, but in the draft it relates in a specific and specific manner to the garden. In these circumstances, even the draft of the first addendum is sufficient to support the fact that in section 8 of the first addendum, there was a clerical error when the word "garden" was replaced by "apartment". To this, it should be added that this claim of the defendant - regarding a clerical error - was not even denied in the testimony of the plaintiff, who testified that she did not notice at all that it was the word "apartment" and did not even know how to explain why it says "apartment and not garden". Thus, on page 46, lines 16-17, the plaintiff was presented with the defendant's claim regarding the error in the caption, and yes, she was asked whether she thought that the intention here was to enlarge the apartment. She replied: "I don't know. I didn't notice it." And later on the same page in lines 32-33: