As to the issue of the building deviation, I will note at this stage that Lihi forwarded Racheli a separate appendix detailing the building irregularities. However, in her interrogation, Lihi claimed that Racheli had not yet had time to make comments in relation to this appendix (ibid., p. 4 of the prologue of May 6,2026, paras. 8-13). I cannot accept the argument that the wording of the building deviation appendix was disputed. The plaintiff was aware of the very existence of the deviation (paragraph 12 of the affidavit) and even knew its scope - 18 square meters, as appears from the correspondence between Racheli and Lihi of October 20,2024 (Appendix 21 to the plaintiff's exhibits). The plaintiff even agreed to bear the consequences deriving from the existence of the deviation (see further: the plaintiff's interrogation at p. 7 of the prologue of February 3,2025, paras. 14-15). It seems that against this background we should also understand Lihi's words in her interrogation, according to which "I do not know if I would have dropped the transaction" (p. 11 of the pro of May 6,2026, question 8) due to the other comments that might have arisen in relation to the draft, as opposed to the issue of the payment schedule. This is despite the fact that she clarified that "we have not reached this stage at all to address the comments" (ibid., p. 11, line 10). In any event, the totality of the matter shows that the construction deviation was not a material dispute that prevented the completion of the engagement between the parties.
In our case, the draft agreement and the subsequent exchange of messages between the attorneys show, as stated, that most of the material details were agreed upon, except for the payment schedule (see Lihi's investigation, p. 3 of the prologue of May 6,2026, paras. 33-35), and subject to my comment above regarding the change in the date of delivery of possession "at the last minute". Indeed, since Racheli clearly knew that the defendant's consent to her offer regarding the payment dates was required, she could not necessarily assume that the defendant would agree to the offer she made. Admittedly, Lihi asked her to "improve", as she defined it, the payment schedule, but Racheli knew that the improvement was based on Lihi's own experience, since Lihi took the trouble to clarify that she was then required to accept the defendant's position on the matter.