The subsequent correspondence between the attorneys shows that Lihi replied that she would check the matter with the defendant and update him on his position and demands. However, even before she was able to receive the defendant's answer and forward it to Racheli, the defendant announced that he had decided not to sell the apartment.
I am unreservedly convinced of Lihi's argument that her immediate response to the comments sent by Racheli on October 29,2024 to the draft agreement related only to the payment schedule, before she was able to review the rest of the comments made by Racheli (paragraph 21 of Lihi's affidavit). Indeed, Racheli showed a willingness to be flexible and compromise on the issue of the payment schedule. However, it was clear that the proposed payment schedule required the defendant's consent. Thus, on October 29,2024, Lihi wrote, "Tomorrow I will check with the sellers, " and the next day Racheli wrote, "Hi, waiting for your reply regarding the payment schedule" (Appendix 31 to the plaintiff's exhibits). Even on October 31,2024, close to the date on which the defendant announced that he was not interested in selling the apartment, Racheli returned and asked: "Is there an answer regarding the terms of payment? ".
Moreover, Racheli's full comments on the draft agreement were sent to Lihi only on October 29,2024, just two days before the defendant announced that he had decided not to sell the apartment. During the two days that passed from the date of sending the notes until the defendant's notice, the attorneys hardly corresponded between them, except for a correspondence that dealt with an attempt to improve the payment schedule to a certain extent. In this matter as well, Lihi sought to verify with Racheli that this was her proposal (Appendix 36 to the plaintiff's exhibits).
The totality of the matter shows that at the time the defendant announced his decision not to sell the apartment, the negotiations between the parties had not yet matured into a final agreement. I do not believe that it is possible to conclude from the limited exchange of dialogue between the lawyers, which took place during a period in which many holidays took place, that the defendant had a final and cohesive intention to sell his apartment. As stated, Racheli forwarded her comments and suggestions to the draft agreement only on October 29,2024, and immediately afterwards made it clear to Lihi that she must examine the matter with the defendant and his wife. Therefore, as long as the plaintiff was not informed of the defendant's position that the wording of the agreement, with all its terms, was acceptable to him, the plaintiff could not conclude that he had formed a full and final intention to enter into a transaction for the sale of the apartment.