This sequence shows, first of all, that the plaintiff's attempt to link the sale of her apartment in Kiryat Bialik to the signing of the contract with the defendant is not accurate at all. The plaintiff claimed that after she agreed with the defendant on the consideration and the date of delivery, "I closed with the purchasers of my apartment..., and then I also authorized Racheli to proceed with the agreement for the sale of my apartment" (paragraph 17 of the affidavit). However, the price of the apartment and the date of delivery do not represent all the aspects necessary for the formulation of certain aspects of the contract, and they certainly cannot testify that there was discretion on the part of the defendant to enter into the contract, when the wording of the contract has not yet been exchanged between the parties and the defendant has not yet taken any steps to do so. The plaintiff mistakenly believed that the agreement regarding the price of the apartment and the date of delivery included a binding contract, but this is not the case.
Moreover, Racheli claimed in the affidavit that "relying" on the fact that on October 29,2024, she accepted Lihi's demand to improve the payment schedule, "Ella signed the agreement for the sale of her apartment in my office, on the evening of October 29,2024" (paragraph 23 of the affidavit). However, as detailed above, already on October 22,2024, Racheli informed Lihi that the plaintiff was expected to sign the agreement for the sale of her apartment in Kiryat Bialik on the same day. Therefore, a real difficulty arises in the argument that only after receiving Lihi's demand to improve the payment schedule, and relying on it, did the plaintiff sign the agreement for the sale of her apartment. Moreover, on October 22,2024, the date on which Racheli informed Lihi that the plaintiff intended to sign the agreement for the sale of her apartment, Racheli had not yet forwarded her comments to the only draft agreement that Racheli had forwarded to her up to that time. In these circumstances, it is difficult to attribute to the plaintiff reliance on the negotiations that took place at that time, which were only at an initial stage, in which only one draft agreement was forwarded and comments had not yet been submitted on behalf of the plaintiff. In any event, at this stage, it was not possible to see the said draft as a basis for the conclusion that the parties had reached a certain conclusion regarding the terms of the transaction and the details of the agreement.