From here, Justice Bornstein distinguished between the case that was discussed in the case of the aforementioned marker - the sale of rights deriving from a combination transaction - and the case that was heard before him in the Michaeli case - the order of construction services. In light of this, Justice Bornstein reached the following conclusion (paragraph 51 of the judgment):
"The appellant stepped into the seller's shoes in connection with the sharing agreement, and in addition, he stepped into the seller's shoes in connection with the agreement for the provision of construction services. Just as the seller purchased construction services from the contractor and not finished residential apartments, so too should the appellant be seen."
- At this point, I would like to comment that in my opinion, the seller in the matter Michaeli and the appellant there Anonymous were in the same situation: the seller was the owner of the land in question Earlier, and therefore only needed construction services in order for residential apartments to be built on them. The Appellant (the Purchaser) Anonymous He was a real estate owner in the compound and in the sale transaction with the seller, the appellant achieved two things: the purchase of the land itself, as well as the purchase of construction services for the purpose of constructing the apartments on the land. Therefore, when the Honorable Justice Bornstein notes later in his remarks (in paragraph 53) that: "... This is not the case [In the matter of Michaeli - The"10] In a factual basis similar to a transaction of purchasing an apartment 'on paper' from a contractor, in which the contractor is the owner of the rights in the land on which the building was built, and he sells parts of his rights to buyers of apartments 'on paper'."After all, this statement is true regarding The seller there (who was, as stated, a landowner from the outset), but not with respect to the appellant who purchased.
And another note: the difference between a combination transaction and a mere order for construction services, as explained by the Appeals Committee in the Michaeli case, undoubtedly exists. However, even in the framework of a combination transaction (of the partial sale type), construction services are ordered - on the part of the land that remains in the hands of the original owner. Therefore, even in the matter of marking the rights transferred to the appellants, they included real estate on the one hand, and construction services on them (by virtue of a combination transaction) on the other.