In case law, it was held that the terms of payment are among the material details necessary for the existence of certain conditions (Civil Appeal 471/76 Goita v. Weiss, IsrSC 31(2) 187 (1977); Civil Appeal 158/77 Rabinai v. Man Shaked Ltd., IsrSC 33(2) 281,288 (1979)). Indeed, during the development of case law, there was a certain softening of this requirement, and the courts were willing to recognize the contract as sufficiently specific even when the terms and dates of payment of the consideration were not specified (Civil Appeal 235/75 Kadri v. Order of the Sisters of St. Charles, IsrSC 30(1) 800 (1976); Civil Appeal 3102/95 Cohen v. Cohen, IsrSC 49(5) 739,747-744 (1996). However. Even if the court is authorized to fill in missing details (see section 26 of the Contracts (General Part) Law, 5733-1973), this completion is not possible when the court is under the impression that one of the parties has not decided to enter into a contractual agreement with the other.
The plaintiff, through her counsel, forwarded a proposed payment schedule, for the first time, on October 29,2024, two days before the defendant announced that he was not interested in selling the apartment. Indeed, when Lihi wrote to Racheli on the same day that she had to improve the payment schedule, Racheli replied, "What are they asking for? Talk to me" (Appendix 31 to the plaintiff's exhibits). In doing so, Racheli reflected a willingness on the part of the plaintiff to be flexible with regard to the payment dates. However, this flexibility was subject to the plaintiff's request to receive "the buyer's reply regarding the date of the second payment" (an email sent by Racheli to Lihi on October 29,2024; Appendix 29 to the plaintiff's exhibits), in a manner that is also consistent with the wording of clause 5(b) of the proposed draft contract (Appendix 30 to the plaintiff's exhibits; see further: Lihi's interrogation at p. 21 of the prologue of May 6,2026, paras. 32-34).
Even after Racheli sent Lihi an "improved" payment schedule, Lihi clarified, "Tomorrow I will check with the sellers" (p. 125 of the plaintiff's exhibits). The next day, on October 30,2024, Racheli wrote to Lihi, "Hi, waiting for your answer regarding the payment schedule", and on October 31,2024, Racheli added, "Is there an answer regarding the payment terms? ". The plaintiff and her counsel knew, therefore, that this was a material matter that required the defendant's approval, and that prior to that there was no room to set a date for the signature. In her testimony, Adi claimed, "We didn't approve the payment schedule, we didn't close things, we didn't, we didn't close on evictions, about rent, I don't know, no, we didn't close on things. About furniture, about nothing, because the deal didn't continue" (p. 77 of Pro. of May 6,2026, paras. 9-11).