It should be emphasized. The payment schedule is not a trivial matter. It constitutes a significant component in terms of the specificity of the contract, which reflects on the seller's discretion. Thus, for example, if it were to be depicted that after Lihi's examination with the defendant, the defendant would have demanded that all the consideration be paid immediately, for any reason whatsoever, then in this case, since the plaintiff adjusted the proposed payment schedule to that included in the contract for the sale of her apartment in Kiryat Bialik, it is interpreted that she was unable to meet the defendant's demands. Thus, in her interrogation on February 3,2025, the plaintiff was asked how she would have acted if the defendant had demanded all the consideration "in one fell swoop" (p. 9 of Prov. 25). To this, she replied, "I would have checked with my lawyer. I don't know what I would have done in this situation. This is an exceptional situation and a situation that would have arisen before me" (ibid., paras. 26-27). In these circumstances, since the plaintiff knew that the proposed payment schedule was awaiting the defendant's approval, she certainly could not claim that the contract was sufficiently specific and that the parties had agreed to enter into an agreement on the text of the proposed draft as a text.
To this must be added the fact that the agreement between the parties was not signed. Indeed, as detailed above, in exceptional cases, the court may determine, on the basis of the totality of the evidence brought before it, that a final agreement was formed between the parties even in the absence of their signing of a written agreement. However, as a rule, the absence of a signature on an agreement constitutes an indication that the parties have not yet decided to enter into a binding contract. Therefore, the burden of proving that despite the absence of the signature the parties intended to enter into a binding agreement, is on the person claiming the validity of the unsigned agreement.