In light of all of the above, the plaintiff petitioned to charge the defendant with payment of the agreed compensation set out in the draft, in the sum of ILS 203,000, together with linkage and interest differences. Alternatively, the plaintiff petitioned for a subsistence compensation award in the amount of ILS 171,314 for the loss of the discount on the price of the apartment, which she claimed was granted to her by the defendant in the framework of negotiations that were conducted between the parties in bad faith. Alternatively, the plaintiff petitioned for reliance damages in the amount of ILS 132,738, for her alleged damages due to the sale of her apartment, which she said was done for the purpose of financing the purchase of the defendant's apartment.
The defendant's arguments
The defendant argued that the claim should be dismissed out of hand, since it is a nuisance and nuisance futile claim, which does not reveal a cause of action and does not establish a rivalry. According to him, the contacts that took place between the parties did not deviate from the scope of initial negotiations, and never matured into a binding contract. He further claimed that the draft agreement that was transferred between the parties was only a technical draft, which was not approved by him and in any case did not reflect a binding agreement on his part. The defendant emphasized that neither he nor his wife had made any decision to sell the apartment, which serves as their sole roof over their heads, without promising them the purchase of an alternative apartment and without receiving approval in principle from the bank to receive a mortgage for the purpose of financing its purchase.
According to the defendant, no final agreement was ever reached between the parties regarding the substantive terms of the transaction, including the payment schedule, the date of the eviction of the apartment, the terms of the exercise of the rental option, and the amount of the rent. According to him, these material issues remained open even in the framework of the last draft agreement, and therefore a final and binding agreement was not reached between the parties. The defendant further referred to the fact that the plaintiff received approval in principle for the mortgage from the bank only on October 31,2024. According to him, this fact shows that the plaintiff acted recklessly when she sold her apartment, before securing the full financing necessary for the purchase of his apartment, and that even according to her, the transaction was not a finished and binding transaction until that date. In addition, the defendant claimed that he and his wife acted in good faith throughout the period and continued to search for an alternative apartment. It was only when they realized that they would not be able to purchase an alternative apartment within the budget available to them, that they were forced to announce the termination of the negotiations, out of fear that they would be left homeless (interrogation of the defendant, at p. 11 of Pro. of February 3,2025, paras. 5-23; ibid., p. 17, paras. 11-13; interrogation of the defendant, at p. 82 of Pro. of May 6,2026, paras. 27-28; ibid., p. 87, paras. 2-3; ibid., p. 98, paras. 9 and 29-31).