"... Guiding parameters have been formulated in court rulings for examining the economic nature of the transaction and for examining the question of whether it is a single transaction or two separate transactions. It was determined that the question of dependence, connection and connection that the parties created or intended to create between the two agreements should be examined, the date of engagement in the agreements, the options available to the purchaser, and the totality of the circumstances of the transaction. In addition, it was determined that weight should be given to the question of whether the existence of one agreement depends on the existence of the additional agreements, and whether the cancellation of one agreement leads to the cancellation of the additional agreements, since this indicates a clear and real connection and the intention of the parties.
...
According to the respondent's position, in accordance with the parameters set out in the case law for examining the economic nature of the transaction and examining whether it is a single transaction or two separate transactions, it must be determined in our case, in each of the appeals, that it is a single transaction for the purchase of a residential apartment... " (from paragraphs 19 and 23 of the respondent's summaries).
The respondent further emphasizes, inter alia, that "there is a close connection between the sale agreement and the partnership agreement and the building contract, and they are intertwined... " (paragraph 25, ibid.) and that:
"... In accordance with all the terms of the sale agreement, the appellants had no possibility of purchasing the land on their own and planning and building the apartment themselves or through a contractor of their own choosing. Moreover, the appellants had no influence whatsoever on the terms of the building contract or any part in the negotiations thereon, and it was presented to them as a fait accompli at the time of signing the sale agreement, without the ability to influence its terms.