As stated, Lihi made sure to clarify throughout the negotiations that any agreement is subject to the defendant's approval. Thus, on October 22,2024, she wrote to Racheli explicitly, "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). Similarly, after Lihi received Racheli's comments on October 29,2024 and asked for an improvement in the payment schedule, she clarified: "Tomorrow I will check with the sellers" (Appendix 31 to the plaintiff's exhibits). When the defendant's position was not received, on October 31,2024, Racheli asked, "Is there an answer regarding the terms of payment? ". This was because it clearly knew that the defendant's position had not yet been communicated.
Racheli claimed that after receiving Lihi's request to improve the payment schedule on October 29,2024, "there was already a complete and final agreement between us on all the terms of the agreement" (paragraph 22 of the affidavit). I am unable to accept this argument. Racheli knew that Lihi's requests regarding the improvement of the payment schedule were given to her on behalf of Lihi herself, since Lihi had explicitly clarified that she had to obtain the defendant's approval for the proposals that were raised. Had Racheli indeed believed that the demands for improving the payment schedule originated from the defendant himself, it is presumed that she would have replied to Lihi that in these circumstances it was not clear why she was required to re-examine and approve his proposals with the defendant. The very fact that Lehi announced that she had to examine the matter with the defendant shows that his position had not yet been given and that his consent to the proposed terms had not yet been received.
In any event, even after Racheli agreed to improve the payment schedule in accordance with the requests she made to Lihi, Racheli wrote to Lihi on October 30,2024, "Hi, I am waiting for your reply regarding the payment schedule" (Appendix 31 to the plaintiff's exhibits). It clearly follows from this that even at this stage, Racheli knew that the defendant's response and approval with respect to the payment schedule had not yet been received, and in any event, the correspondence between the two cannot be considered as a final and absolute agreement on all the terms of the transaction.