On the issue that is prima facie relevant to our case, and it revolves around the question of whether equality should be quantitative or substantial, it seems that the prevailing approach in case law is that the relevant equality is substantive equality. Thus, for the essence of equality in consideration in a similar transaction - a transaction according to TAMA 38, I was required in the Eisen case. In that case, the various apartments in the project were divided into groups - small apartments and large apartments, and consideration for the apartments was determined according to their size, in such a way that the large apartments received a larger addition than the small apartments. In these circumstances, the owners of the small apartments argued that since the consideration is not equal, their refusal to the transaction is reasonable. This argument was rejected by me while I determined that equality should be determined with regard to the group of equals and in accordance with the fact that where there is a difference from the outset between the apartments in light of their size (which also affects their share of the common property), there is justification for the difference in consideration and the essential equality is preserved. This is what I determined in paragraph 25 of the judgment:
"First of all, it should be emphasized - in light of the comment of the Honorable Justice Kasher in the Shochat case in the Supreme Court - that my determination that the relevant test is quantitative-substantial, does not mean that in any case only this test will be applied, but rather that it is the main test that must be applied, and it is clear that in extreme cases, in which there are material economic differences, this can also be addressed within the framework of the considerations that are considered in the framework of the project approval process.
Second, and especially where it is a matter of demolition and reconstruction, a determination that the relevant test is the quantitative-substantive test, does not mean that all the apartment owners have been amended with an identical addition of areas in the framework of the project. Rather, the addition must be equal - that is, that the equals have been amended with an identical addition. This is because my determination that the relevant equality is quantitative equality does not negate the rule as established from the precedent, and in accordance with it, equality must be applied between equals and that there is no discrimination, but rather where different treatment is taken to equals. That is, in order for a claim of discrimination to be accepted, the claimant of discrimination must show that he is equal to the comparison group, and nevertheless a different treatment is taken against him...