Fourthly, we have already noted that only two days have passed since Racheli's full comments were forwarded to the only draft contract that was sent on October 29,2024, until the defendant's announcement on October 31,2024 that he was not selling the apartment. During this short period of time, the discussion between the attorneys was mainly limited to the issue of the payment schedule. In any event, Lihi was careful to state in her statements that she was waiting to receive the defendant's approval. He was also not able to provide Lihi with her opinion regarding the other comments made by Racheli, including with regard to increasing the amount of the agreed compensation.
In her summaries, the plaintiff found it difficult to point to the distinct date or stage in which an offer and acceptance took place together, as opposed to gradual progress in the negotiations (paragraph 6(g) of the plaintiff's summaries, at p. 9; see in this regard: Civil Appeal 10859/07 Chevra Kadisha Gehsha by the Chief Rabbinate and the Religious Council of Tel Aviv-Jaffa and the District (R.A.) v. David Levy [Nevo] (January 22,2012)).
Initially, the plaintiff claimed that "after intensive negotiations over the price of the apartment, Daniel and Ella agreed, on October 1,2024, through Sapir and Tal, that the amount of consideration would be ILS 2,030,000 and that the date of delivery would be on July 10,2025 (hereinafter: "the basic details"), including an option to rent for an additional 3 months" (p. 2 of the summaries). However, in the circumstances of the case, it is self-evident that these agreements indicated only a willingness to move forward in the negotiations and not an intention to enter into a binding contract. This is because at that time the details of the negotiations had not yet been conveyed to the lawyers, and in any event, no draft was exchanged between the parties.
The plaintiff further claimed that on October 6,2024, after the parties had agreed on the basic details, the matter was transferred to Racheli and Lihi, and that on October 7,2024, "Ella and the purchasers of her apartment closed the amount of the consideration..., and authorized Racheli to move forward with the agreement to sell her" (ibid., ibid.). However, as stated, even these dates do not indicate a distinct legal point in time at which a binding meeting of wills has already been created, since the correct draft was first submitted only on October 10,2024, and therefore, certainly on October 6,2024, a binding agreement had not yet been perfected. In any event, the fact that the plaintiff agreed with the purchasers of her apartment in Kiryat Bialik on the amount of the consideration, and authorized Racheli to proceed with the agreement for its sale, was known only to the plaintiff and Racheli. The plaintiff could not necessarily assume that the initial contacts with the defendant, even before a draft agreement was submitted - and in any case the full terms of the agreement were not agreed, including with regard to the payment schedule - may indicate complete discretion and certain certainties.