(b) On the other hand, according to clause 5.2.1.2 of the sale contract,
"As long as the agreed consideration is not paid in full... The buyer will not be entitled to exercise with respect to the building agreement, in the shoes of the 'client' in the context of the seller's apartment, rights whose realization requires positive action on the part of the 'client' but only, and only, with the seller's prior written consent... Without derogating from the generality of the aforesaid, the buyer will not be entitled to order additional works within the framework of the construction agreement, nor to cancel the building agreement in the event of a breach by the company. "
In other words, the purchasers are not given the right to cancel the construction contract - even if the contracting company has fundamentally breached it - before the purchasers have finished paying the agreed consideration to the sellers;
(c) Similarly, according to clause 2.2 of the approval letters delivered by the contracting companies to the purchasers:
"... If and on the fixed date for payment of the future payments the condition as defined below is not met, the date for the execution of such payment shall be postponed within a period of up to ten (10) days from the date of the fulfillment of the condition, without this being considered as any breach of the building contract... In this clause 'the condition' means: the ownership of half (1/2) of the plot has been registered in the name of [the seller] and a cautionary note in your favor, [of the purchasers] in respect of the contract of sale on the registered ownership of [the seller]."
In other words, the rights and obligations of the contracting companies may have been affected by the extent to which the sales contracts between the sellers and the appellants were fulfilled.
- Fourth, it turns out that out of the total 15 million shekels paid by the appellants for the rights and the building, 14.5 million shekels"H was paid to the sole sellers, and only ILS 0.5 million"Paid to one of the contracting companies (A. Aharon Development and Construction Ltd."M) The appellants had an explanation for this:
"The appellants clarified in today's hearing that the money was indeed paid directly to the sellers, instead of payment to the contractor, because they took out a mortgage and the lending bank did not agree to give payment other than to the party involved in the transaction, i.e., to the sellers. "