With regard to the value of the addition in square meters to the plaintiff's apartment, the defendant refers to the upgrade notice, which indicates that the defendant priced each square meter of an addition in the amount of ILS 21, 000. It was argued that in light of this, the value of the addition per square meter to the plaintiff's apartment was approximately ILS 817, 000, and in accordance with this, only a sum of ILS 132, 260 was paid by the plaintiff for the addition to the garden. As to this amount, it was first argued that an examination of the amount of payment for the garden, multiplying the square meters that were determined, by the value and coefficient as determined by the plaintiff's appraiser (25%), shows that the plaintiff actually paid only about 28% of the real value of the garden that she received. It was argued that this low pricing of the garden stemmed from the uncertainty regarding the possibility of attaching garden areas and the scope of the areas. In this context, the defendant argues that the plaintiff's claim should be rejected and accordingly the "upgrade notice" was not sent. With regard to this, the defendant argues that even if there is a factual dispute as to whether or not this notice was sent more than a decade ago, there is no reason to cast aspersions on the authenticity of the document as having been prepared in real time, and this does not negate the claim that the upgrades were made according to it. Moreover, it was argued that in any event, the value of the upgrade appearing in this notice corresponds to the coefficient as determined by the appraiser on behalf of the plaintiff herself in his opinion.
- According to the defendant, the continuation of the events also indicates both the uncertainty regarding the attachment of the garden area, the agreement to reduce the area that will be attached in any case, and the defendant's efforts with regard to the attachment of the garden. Thus, the defendant specifies that the TAMA agreementof May 28, 2015 included a table of areas detailing the upgrades, in which it was noted that the plaintiff's upgraded consideration apartment would be on the ground floor, with a built-up area of 130 square meters and a 90 square meter garden. According to the defendant, this fact indicates that even before the application for a permit was submitted, the parties assumed that there was a possibility that a garden with an area of 128 square meters, which is an area mentioned only in the first addendum and subject to the approval of the municipality, and therefore, in any event, the area of the garden was reduced to 90 square meters.
According to the defendant, after the signing of the TAMA agreement, she conducted oral contacts and preliminary discussions in meetings with the municipality regarding the building plan, in which she was informed that it would not be possible to attach courtyards to the façade facing French People's Boulevard. According to the defendant, there is no written documentation of this discourse as the witness testified on her behalf. As a result, on January 17, 2018, a personal meeting was held at the defendant's offices between the plaintiff and Mr. Zvika Rubinstein, in which the plaintiff was updated about the municipality's position and the prevention of the possibility of linkage. At this meeting, Rubinstein suggested to the plaintiff to cancel the addition and return to a standard consideration apartment, or to replace the apartment with a high-rise apartment or another garden apartment, but the plaintiff chose to stay with the current apartment despite the risks. According to the defendant, the plaintiff chose in bad faith to omit this meeting from her affidavit in order to present a false representation that she was "astonished" to find out about the matter in retrospect, but in her cross-examination she finally confirmed that she was presented with the problem of prevention and was offered to receive the upgrade money back. It was further claimed that during her interrogation, the plaintiff suddenly "remembered" a variety of new and unreliable claims that were not mentioned in the affidavit, such as attempts by the defendant to remove her from the project or prevent her from entering the property.