The witness, Mr. Almoznino: Where is it relevant?
Adv. Horowitz: Not relevant?
The witness, Mr. Almoznino: I don't think it's relevant."
[See p. 9 of the transcript, lines 34-39].
"Adv. Horowitz: You filed a lawsuit and did not mention the agreement with Aura, at some point I've been paying here since two years have passed.
The witness, Mr. Almoznino: Yes.
Adv. Horowitz: Why didn't you amend the lawsuit?
The witness, Mr. Almoznino: What needs to be fixed?"
[See p. 16 of the transcript, lines 35-39].
- The defendants filed a statement of defense and a statement of counterclaim.
- In the statement of defense, the defendants insisted that this was not a breach of the sale agreement on their part, but rather a "force majeure, in a case that the entire state was talking about", and that "the plaintiff did not suffer any damage, on the contrary she made the transaction of her life", since it was only due to the collapse of the building that the apartment owners were able to advance an evacuation-reconstruction transaction "at a record rate of about 3 months from the date of the collapse", and therefore the claim can be crowned as "a blatant case of greed and abuse of legal proceedings".
- All the more so with regard to the defendants' version, the plaintiff was even offered to cancel the transaction after the collapse of the building, but she chose to complete it out of discretion regarding the current condition of the apartment.
- The defendants further pointed out that the registration of the young plaintiff as the owner of the apartment is "an artificial transaction intended to evade taxes" and that she lacks any right to comply with the lawsuit, as far as the defendants' view is concerned, the father is the real purchaser of the apartment and the plaintiff in practice.
- The defendants also held on to offset claims stemming from expenses incurred for the purpose of legal advice in the framework of the sale agreement, from the fact that the plaintiff was the one who breached the sale agreement by " denying her undertaking to receive the apartment AS IS", and therefore she was the one who breached the agreement and is obligated to pay the agreed compensation in the sum of ILS 158,000, and for arrears interest resulting from the plaintiff's delay in paying the consideration.
- The counterclaim filed by the defendants was based on the same remedies and alleged damages.
In the upheavals of the agreement between Holon and Sodom:
- The righteous and good halakhic reward of this claim, which is embodied in the rule according to which "coercion on the measure of Sedom" can be reached through the law of thwarting [section 18 of the Contracts Law (Remedies for Breach of Contract), 5731-1970, hereinafter: "the Remedies Law"], since the collapse of a residential building in this way is not as predictable as war, fire and earthquake, or through the law of agreed compensation [section 15 of the Remedies Law]However, the parties themselves left clear footprints on a different path, which they actually followed.
- Regarding the weight of the famous statement attributed to Baudelaire, the greatest trick of the statement of claim here is to convince us of the non-existence of the sale agreement, and thus to divert the discussion to questions of thwarting the contract and the agreed compensation, which assume that the defendants did indeed breach the sale agreement, i.e., that the sale agreement was not fulfilled, and possession was not delivered.
- However, it stands to reason that as analyzed in paragraphs 64-68 of the defendants' summaries, tracing the sequence of events will lead to a clear conclusion that the merging of the parties' expectations from the sale agreement with their conduct after the collapse of the building and until the filing of the lawsuit indicates that the sale agreement was fulfilled by them by means of the doctrine of approximate existence.
- Not only that, the initiator and leading factor in this was the father, while the defendants, in their fairness, gave him extensions for the purpose of weighing matters and even allowed him to change his choice, until he made up his mind.
- Thus, the initial messages between the parties presented at the hearing were exchanged on October 3, 2021, about three weeks after the building collapsed. The father then contacted the defendants' attorney in an e-mail and it was agreed between the parties to grant an extension of 30 days for the purpose of fulfilling the parties' combined obligations to deliver the apartment against payment of the balance of the consideration, so that the transaction would be completed or canceled until November 7, 2021.
- Thus, after these things, on October 31, 2021, the father contacted defendant No. 1 and offered her a choice of one of three options. The first two options are intended to complete the sale transaction as it stands, while agreeing on various specific remedies for the loss of rent expected to the plaintiff as a result of the inability to rent the apartment in the current state of affairs. The third option was to cancel the sale agreement, taking into account "the costs of the transaction and financing on my money that has already been paid."
- Thus, the father immediately answered as follows: "Your first two options are not an option for us. Since you do not want to complete the transaction as it was signed with an option to improve the property in a relatively short period of time, the third option of canceling the transaction altogether is the only option. As part of the cancellation of the transaction, the funds that were paid will be returned immediately."
- Thus, the father accepted this offer on the website and without reservation when he replied: "One hundred percent. I'll update the lawyers," and even pleaded, "Is there any impediment to refunding me the money right tomorrow?". The father's sophisticated alienation from the clear meaning of his plea during his testimony also eroded the credibility of that testimony [see p. 13 of the transcript, lines 12-25].
- What happened between this covenant and the plaintiff's letter of November 4, 2025, in which, in complete contradiction, the transaction was requested to be completed while raising claims from the threshing floor and the winery regarding the defendants' breaches of the sale agreement and the plaintiff's right to compensation therefor?
- According to defendant No. 1, the turning point lies in the information that the plaintiff received about the advanced contacts with Aura [see p. 32 of her testimony in the transcript, lines 13-20]. On the other hand, the father sealed this matter with an answer that he concluded with a rhetorical question - "Because it was my decision not to cancel the deal, it's not math, is it?" [See p. 15 of the transcript, lines 38-39], and all this was done by someone who is an accountant and even testified about himself, as quoted above, that he "served and continues to serve in senior management positions and is knowledgeable in such transactions" and that the presumption is that "a person does not bother to eat a meal and lose" [Babylonian Talmud, Ketubot, 10a].
- One way or another, the defendants did not demand in their reply to the plaintiff's attorney the enforcement of the acceptance quoted in paragraph 32 above, despite the simple math according to which if they had insisted on the fulfillment of the said parent word and the sale agreement had been canceled, they would have been the ones who pocketed the profits of the evacuation-construction deal that would have been signed.
- Thus, contrary to the interpretation that the plaintiff's counsel seeks to impose in paragraph 7.9 of his summaries what was stated in the defendants' attorney's letter of November 8, 2021, the defendants already rejected in this letter the plaintiff's puzzling demand in her attorney's letter of November 7, 2024, that the balance of the consideration be deposited in escrow until "the sellers can transfer possession of the apartment under the terms set out in the sale agreement", and suggested the way the parties ultimately went, namely, that due to the "force majeure" that prevents the physical delivery of the apartment, the parties will arrange for the continuation of the conduct Among them is "in light of the new situation."
- Don't forget - the plaintiff did not purchase an apartment for her to live in, but made a real estate investment in order to rake in future capital from her in the form of a potential evacuation-reconstruction transaction. In the circumstances that arose, the aforesaid capital purpose was realized from the moment when, as a result of her choice to complete the transaction, she was able to realize that potential and to act in the apartment as an owner's custom and as a holder in all matters relating to negotiations with Aura in which her father was involved [see the father's answers at p. 17 of the transcript, lines 25-33], by signing the agreement with Aura and by receiving monthly rent from Aura.
- Accepting the prosecution's approach that to date the plaintiff has not received possession of the apartment will turn the trial into an absurd theater, with the testimony of the plaintiff buying an apartment and a plaintiff knowing almost nothing about the purchase and the claim, while the father's testimony will embody an eternal opportunity to deliver the old apartment, even though it will never come [see "Waiting for Godot," S. Beckett, 1953], andas emerges from the following circular dialogue:
"The witness, Mr. Almoznino: I want to say something, what you're asking me here is whether I'm Accepted, not accepted, yes I did, I didn't, I want to say something, The deal has finally progressed to where we are now, it's true The deal got where it went, so if anyone thought I got the So why didn't they insist on it, why didn't anyone come? And he said to me, come on, this is the summary, it didn't happen, after all, the deal in the end is after A lot of effort came to an end in the end.