In fact, Sapir's own version on this matter was inconsistent. While at the beginning of his testimony he claimed that he had "unequivocally" informed Tal about the mortgage (p. 36 of Prov. S. 23), he later disapproved of his statement and admitted that he did not remember if he had indeed done so, saying: "I don't remember telling you, it could be that I did, maybe I didn't, I don't remember telling you..." (ibid., p. 38, s. 27).
Interim Summary Regarding the Parties' Intention to Enter into a Binding Agreement
Since the first correct draft was sent on October 10,2024, and subsequently sent it in a Word file on October 13,2024, only a few notices were exchanged between the attorneys regarding the transaction. During this period, the High Holidays occurred, and in any case the number of working days was small. Only on October 29,2024, just two days before the defendant announced that he had decided not to sell his apartment, after he had not been able to find an alternative apartment at a price that matched his financial capabilities - after it had already been made clear to him that he would not receive the mortgage approval he needed - Racheli, the plaintiff's attorney, sent her comments to Lihi, the defendant's attorney. Shortly thereafter, Lihi replied with a comment regarding the payment schedule, and at the same time clarified that she must obtain the approval of the defendant and his wife to do so.
Against the background of the chronological sequence as described, and taking into account the testimonies of the parties and the totality of the evidence that was placed before me, I am convinced on the factual level that throughout the negotiations Racheli was aware that Lihi's requests to improve the payment schedule were only on her mind, and that Lihi clarified, time and time again, that she was required to obtain the defendant's consent to these changes. As detailed above, in the circumstances of the present case, the payment schedule is not a trivial matter. This is an essential component of the transaction, which has the potential to affect the question of the defendant's discretion to enter into an agreement with the plaintiff.