The plaintiff went on to claim that on October 13,2024, Lihi sent Racheli a draft agreement, and that on October 29,2024, Racheli forwarded her comments to this draft. It is reasonable to assume that the plaintiff did not intend that the meeting of desires was created on October 13,2024. This is certainly evident from the fact that on October 20,2024, Racheli learned that there was a construction irregularity in the apartment, and therefore, on October 22,2024, she clarified that she was "waiting for the appendix to the deviations", and that "we need to coordinate a final payment schedule" (Appendix 23 to the plaintiff's exhibits). Lihi, for her part, wrote to Racheli in a repeated message dated October 22,2024, "... You have not yet sent me notes and a payment schedule so that I can approve with the sellers" (ibid., ibid.). It is evident, therefore, that this is the initial stage of the negotiations, prior to the submission of notes to the draft contract, and in any event, before an appendix to the deviations was prepared, before a payment schedule was coordinated, and before the defendant approved the notes and the payment schedule.
00On the basis of the aforesaid, the plaintiff's argument that Racheli's offer on October 22,2024 "to meet for signatures next week" (Appendix 23 to the plaintiff's exhibits) embodies a date when there was a cumulative amount of discretion and certain conclusions (appendix to p. 2 of her summaries). Racheli's proposal was given, as stated, even before she submitted her full comments to the draft agreement. The fact that the plaintiff intended to sign an agreement for the sale of her apartment in Kiryat Bialik on October 22,2024, cannot shape the defendant's discretion and specificity at that time, before an appendix to the exceptions was made, before the schedule of payments was coordinated, and before the defendant approved the comments and the schedule of payments.
0
Moreover, at that time the plaintiff had not yet sold her apartment in Kiryat Bialik, and had not even acted to obtain approval in principle for the mortgage; this approval was received only on October 31,2024 (Appendix 34 to the plaintiff's exhibits). Since the plaintiff intended to finance, at least in part, the consideration that she would pay to the defendant by means of the funds received from the sale of her apartment, together with the amount of the mortgage she would receive from the bank, it is clear that at this stage the plaintiff has not yet formulated a final decision to enter into an agreement with the defendant.