The fact that the payment for the construction services was made through the sale of other real estate rights (and not in cash, for example) should not change.
- In any case, on the matter Michaeli It was found that "About two years after the signing of the sale agreement [Between the seller and the appellant there - The"10] A protocol was signed between the members of the group and the division of rights in the project's apartments". In other words, in the matter Michaeli, not only the construction of the apartments Not yet started At the time of the sale of the rights to the appellant (and it even appears that a building permit has not yet been received), but the apartments themselves Not yet identified. Therefore, the Appeals Committee continued to argue that:
"It is only that it is appropriate to examine each case according to its circumstances, and the definition of a 'residential apartment' should not be expanded beyond the language of the law and its clear purpose. Therefore, the matter must be referred to as marking according to the context in which the judgment was given in its case - a person who purchased a right in real estate from another person who entered into a transaction with the contractor in a transaction for the construction of the apartment, should be regarded as someone who purchased a 'residential apartment', only where it is clearly a combination transaction, in which the seller, and in any case also the purchaser, is not required to do anything until the apartment is received from the contractor, and his situation, therefore, is similar to that of one who purchases an apartment 'on paper' from a contractor.
...
Only when all the risks and chances in the construction of the future residential apartment are not placed at the door of the purchaser, and he is not required to do anything until the apartment is received, then it will be possible to say that in essence a residential apartment was purchased 'on paper'. In the Lesman case, we were dealing with appellants who received rights in the land as a gift from their relatives, in respect of which a combination transaction was signed, and the contractor in that matter undertook to build residential apartments on the land before the gift givers. In other words, the appellants in the Lesman case were not required to do anything 'up to the key', as is customary in a combination transaction. On the other hand, in the present case, the appellant, like the other rights holders who chose the option of ordering construction services, was required to take active action in order to have a finished apartment.