At most, the plaintiff intends that the parties made up their minds to enter into an agreement on October 29,2024, on the date on which Racheli first forwarded her full comments to the draft contract (see also paragraph 22 of Racheli's affidavit). However, the fact that one party forwarded comments to a draft agreement sent to it by the other party cannot give a final opinion and specificity. The conclusion is examined, inter alia, according to the wording of the draft, the correspondence, the conduct of the parties, the circumstances of the matter and the manner in which the parties viewed the document in real time. It is not enough for the plaintiff to claim that as far as she is concerned, only a formal signature remains. As we have foreseen, Racheli submitted a large number of comments to the draft agreement, including a partial proposal for a payment schedule, while writing about the date of the second payment, that the plaintiff was "waiting for an answer from the buyer", and that the amount of the agreed compensation would be increased from a total of ILS 106,000 to a total of ILS 203,000 . The subsequent messages that were exchanged between the attorneys afterwards showed that Lihi replied that she would check with the defendant and update him on his position on the matter. Even before she could give notice of the defendant's response, the defendant had already announced that he had decided not to sell the apartment. All that time Racheli clearly knew that the defendant's approval was required regarding the comments and the payment schedule. Therefore, as long as the defendant did not reply that the wording of the draft was fully acceptable to him, the plaintiff was not able to draw a full intentions on his part for the sale of the apartment.
In fact, in my opinion, since Leahy announced that she was required to check with the defendant the comments and the offer regarding the dates of payment, and the defendant retracted it before the examination and approval took place, the difficulty is not only that the plaintiff did not prove a distinct stage in which an offer and an acceptance, a finality and a certain amount of discretion took place together, but that there was no acceptance on the part of the defendant-seller and his determination to enter into the contract. The fact that other details were agreed, in particular regarding the consideration and the date of delivery, should have set the wheels of the conversation between the lawyers, but they do not replace the need to prove the seller's agreement to the terms of payment and to the contract as a whole.