Before concluding this chapter, it should also be noted that during the course of 2024, the defendant and Adi contacted a mortgage consultant on their behalf, Mr. Amir Herman, and informed him that the price of the apartment they owned was ILS 2,200,000. Subsequently, after receiving the plaintiff's updated offer to purchase the apartment, in the sum of only ILS 2,030,000, the defendant and Adi contacted Mr. Herman again, on October 13,2024, and updated him on the offer (paragraphs 2-5 of Mr. Herman's affidavit). Mr. Herman stated in his affidavit that he had made it clear to the defendant and his wife that if the apartment would be sold at the price offered by the plaintiff, there was a real chance that the bank would not approve a mortgage for them for the purpose of purchasing an alternative apartment. He further clarified that even if they were given approval in principle for the mortgage, there was concern as to their ability to meet the mortgage repayments. Therefore, Mr. Herman summarized his position and emphasized to them that, "the conclusion is that it is not economical for the customers to enter into such a move" (paragraph 11 of his affidavit). Thus in the original; See also: his interrogation at p. 50 of the prologue of May 6,2026, questions 22-26; p. 51, questions 3-4 and questions 30). Mr. Herman explained that as a professional he is obligated to "put a warning sign" in front of his clients (ibid., p. 51, paras. 13), and that "the role of a mortgage consultant is to set boundaries for people" (ibid., para. 17). He further clarified that apart from two isolated phone calls, he did not speak to the defendant and his wife again (ibid., paras. 38-39), since, according to him, "I later understood that they had dropped out of the transaction" (ibid., p. 51, paras. 34; ibid., p. 52, paras. 1-3).
Adi claimed in her interrogation that following Mr. Herman's explicit and unequivocal clarifications, she and the defendant understood that they would not be able to purchase the apartment they had planned to purchase in the first place (p. 56 of Pro. of May 6,2026, paras. 18-19). Therefore, they began to look for an alternative apartment whose price corresponds to the expected consideration received from the sale of their apartment, in the sum of ILS 2,030,000 (ibid., p. 56, paras. 16-17). As detailed above, Adi noted that she and the defendant only shared with Sapir that they would not be able to purchase the apartment they wanted in the first place, and therefore there is a possibility that the transaction to sell their apartment to the plaintiff will not be carried out.