As to the element of specificity, it is necessary to have an agreement on the essential and material details of the transaction. However, the requirement of specificity has been softened over the years, and today an agreement that lacks some of the material details can be seen as sufficiently specific if it is possible to fill in the missing details through external complementary mechanisms. This is unless there is a disagreement, explicit or implicit, between the parties regarding these details (Civil Appeal 692/86 Yaakov Butkovsky & Co. Import and Marketing Company Ltd. v. Gat, IsrSC 44(1) 58 (1989); Civil Appeal 9255/11 Yosef Daniel v. Anonymous, para. 19 [Nevo] (August 11,2013); Civil Appeal 7859/22 Dorit Construction and Development Company Ltd. v. Civil Administration, paragraphs 27-28 [Nevo] (July 15,2024)).
Although the element of finality and the element of specificity are separate and independent, there is a reciprocal relationship between them. These two elements are intertwined and intertwined. Thus, the existence of a great deal of specificity may attest, in general, to the intention of the parties to enter into an agreement, and similarly, the existence of a conclusion may lead to the conclusion that it is possible to resort to the complementary mechanisms set forth in the law, except when there is no explicit or implicit agreement regarding the deficiency.
Examination of the parties' intention to enter into a binding agreement
The plaintiff visited the apartment twice on September 29,2024. At the time of the visits, only Adi was present in the apartment, while her partner, the defendant, was not present. Afterwards, the plaintiff and the defendant did not have any direct conversation between them regarding the apartment, and all communication between them on this matter was conducted through the realtors and their representatives. At the time of the visits, the plaintiff was willing to offer only ILS 1,900,000 for the apartment.
On October 1,2024, the day before the eve of Rosh Hashanah, Tal contacted Sapir and informed him that the plaintiff was willing to raise her bid for the purchase of the apartment to the sum of ILS 2,030,000. Tal also updated that the plaintiff agrees that the date of delivery of possession of the apartment will be set for July 10,2025, while allowing the defendant and his wife to continue living in the apartment as tenants for an additional three months.