Moreover, and this is the main thing. From the date of sending the correct draft agreement on October 10,2024, the day before the eve of Yom Kippur, until the defendant's announcement on October 31,2024 that he did not intend to sell the apartment, only 21 days passed. Within this short period of time, Yom Kippur, which lasted two days, took place, as did the Sukkot holiday, together with Fridays and Saturdays, which lasted for an additional 11 days. During Chol Hamoed Sukkot, on October 20,2024, Lihi confirmed to Racheli that there was a building irregularity in the apartment, taking into account Racheli's earlier question on the matter of October 14,2024. Later, on October 22,2024, Lihi wrote to Racheli, "... You have not yet sent me notes and a payment schedule so that I can approve with the sellers" (the notice was attached as Appendix 23 to the plaintiff's exhibits). Racheli knew, therefore, that her comments on the draft agreement, as well as the payment schedule, required approval from the defendant, the seller, and that such approval had not yet been received. This knowledge stemmed not only from the actual conduct of the parties, but also from Racheli's role as the plaintiff's attorney and from the manner in which the negotiations were conducted through the parties' counsel.
Apparently, out of a desire to adapt her comments, and in particular the payment schedule, to the terms of the agreement that was to be signed for the sale of the plaintiff's apartment in Kiryat Bialik, only a week later, on October 29,2024, Racheli forwarded her full comments to Lihi to the draft agreement. In this framework, for the first time, Racheli also attached a proposed payment schedule on behalf of the plaintiff, which corresponded to the payment schedule that was set between her and the purchasers of her apartment in Kiryat Bialik (paragraph 19 of Racheli's affidavit). This was an extensive collection of comments and amendments, including only a partial proposal for the payment schedule. Thus, with respect to the second payment, it was noted that the plaintiff was "awaiting an answer from the buyer", and it was also proposed to increase the amount of the agreed compensation from a total of ILS 106,000 to a sum of ILS 203,000 .