In our case, Adi, the defendant's wife, testified that she and the defendant knew that Lihi was "beginning to work on the transaction" (p. 55 of Prov. of May 6,2026, question 15). However, "we understood from them, I really say this in a hurry, I don't know if they were innocent, but they are the professionals, and we passed it on to them..., the lawyer, the realtor... who as far as they are concerned is all managers. It is to prepare some kind of draft that will be ready after the holidays. That we will check all the things and that we will simply be able to come to fill in the final details" (ibid., paras. 18-24). Adi's version was authentic and reflected her state of mind, as well as the defendant's state of mind (see his interrogation at p. 93 of the prologue of May 6,2026, paras. 20-23), when they attached their agreement to exchange a draft agreement between the attorneys. I am faithful to the version of Adi and the defendant that they believed that exchanging a draft agreement without a signature was not binding on the parties (for this reason, on October 20,2024, the defendant explained to Lihi regarding the identification of the apartment, even though he did not send her a municipal tax form as she requested - paragraph 17 of his affidavit).
In addition to all this, the conclusion that the parties have not yet decided to enter into a binding agreement for the sale of the apartment, and that the draft in itself did not reflect a final and binding agreement, is also supported by a range of other indications:
First, the parties did not set a date for the signing of the agreement. Racheli expressed hope that the signing of the agreement would take place in the week beginning on October 27,2024 (see her notice of October 22,2024; Appendix 23 to the plaintiff's exhibits). However, she herself submitted full comments to the contract only on October 29,2024. In any event, Lihi never confirmed that the agreement would be signed, and certainly did not confirm a date for its signing.