With regard to the requirement for a ruling on mental anguish, it should be said that the case law has determined that compensation for non-pecuniary damage is not routinely awarded, and that its ruling will be made in special cases in which the disappointment, frustration or injury deviates from the ordinary result of a transaction that has not been perfected (Civil Appeal 3437/93 Egged, Cooperative Association for Transportation in Israel Ltd. v. Adler, IsrSC 55(1) 817,835 (1998); Civil Appeal 8588/06 David Daljo v. Israel Development Authority Ltd. [Nevo] (November 11,2010)). In our case, the defendant changed his mind during the negotiations against the background of the circumstances that arose, but he did not do so in a blatant breach of the relationship of trust between the parties, and he certainly did not act maliciously or in any other harmful way. I have already noted that the defendant did not create a representation that the transaction was closed, and in any event, did not cause the plaintiff to rely on it. Indeed, it is only natural that the plaintiff felt frustration and disappointment that the transaction with the defendant did not materialize, but the usual subjective disappointment that characterizes any discourse that did not end with the signing of a contract is not enough.
Conclusion
After all this, we find that a binding agreement was not perfected between the parties . Therefore, I have not found an agreed-upon award to the plaintiff. Nor have I found it appropriate to award the plaintiff subsistence damages in the amount of ILS 171,314 for the loss of an alleged discount of ILS 170,000 from the seller's demand le-khatḥila regarding the price of the apartment, as requested in clause 2.2.2 of the statement of claim, for the reasons detailed above (as to the demand for a subsistence compensation award in respect of another head of damage, as detailed on page 1 of the plaintiff's summary, paragraph 3(b), I have already noted that this demand is rejected by me, since the pleadings enclose the scope of the dispute and the remedies requested. Therefore, a demand for a higher sum for subsistence damages than that claimed in the statement of claim should not be appropriate). Even with regard to the demand for a judgment of reliance damages in the amount of ILS 132,738 against the background of the plaintiff's claim that she sold her previous apartment for the purpose of financing the purchase of the defendant's apartment, I found that the demand should be rejected for the reasons detailed above.