Defendant 3, Mr. Shlomi Dahari
Mr. Dahari served as a link between the transfer of the Goren hearing place and plaintiffs 3-7, as he was the mediator. As stated, Mr. Dahari presented these plaintiffs with the letters of the deputy mayor and showed them other transactions that were made with other purchasers. There is no doubt that these moves motivated plaintiffs 3-7 to enter into transactions. On the face of it, this is not wrong, since the role of a real estate broker is to bring together two or more parties for the purpose of entering into a real estate right transaction (see the definition of the term "real estate brokerage" in section 1 of the Real Estate Brokers Law, 5756-1996; hereinafter: "the Realtors Law"). Indeed, contrary to his claim, I am persuaded that Mr. Dahari informed the plaintiffs in advance that they must stock up on sums of money in cash, and that at the request of the attorney to transfer the Goren hearing place, the plaintiffs were required to agree that lower sums would be recorded in the contracts than those they actually paid (see, for example, the testimony of Ms. Shimoni at p. 1371, question 23). However, the plaintiffs could have avoided signing the contracts, and in any event, Mr. Dahari's misguided approach in this matter does not constitute any misrepresentation of the plaintiffs. As to the argument relating to section 15, I noted above that Mr. Dahari did not conceal this from the plaintiffs. Like the plaintiffs themselves, Mr. Dahari did not pay attention to the full meaning derived from clause 15 of the lease contract, either because he too hoped that the lands he purchased would yield the return he expected, or because it was a legal aspect that, in his opinion, was protected under the duty of the plaintiffs' counsel. In any event, as detailed above, none of the plaintiffs explicitly claimed that Mr. Dahari knew about section 15 and deliberately concealed it from him.
Indeed. There is no dispute that a realtor is obligated to act faithfully, fairly and in an acceptable manner towards his clients, and that he must provide the client with "any information in his possession regarding a material matter relating to the property that is the subject of the brokerage transaction" (section 8 of the Realtors Law). When a realtor fails to disclose material information to his clients, including information that according to the law, practice or circumstances he should have disclosed, it can be determined that he has violated the provision of section 8 of the Brokers Law, as well as that in appropriate circumstances he misled the clients by way of default under section 15 of the Contracts Law. However, the duty of disclosure depends on a given set of factual circumstances, and a condition for the existence of the deception is that there was a mistake among the customers who entered into the contract. Such a mistake "is an erroneous assessment of the reality of things as they are, and an action taken on the assumption of the existence of such a virtual reality is liable to suffer from a cognitive defect in the bodies of desire" (paragraph 9 of the judgment of the Honorable Justice Hayut, Other Municipal Applications 2469/06 Ronen Suissa v. Zaga Company in Block 5027, Plot 1 in Tax Appeal (August 14, 2008)). In the present case, I do not believe that Mr. Dahari as an intermediary had an advantage over plaintiffs 3-7 with regard to obtaining up-to-date planning information, since he relied on the letters of the Deputy Mayor and had no reason to doubt the content of the letters or to make more in-depth inquiries. The boundaries of the duties of a realtor should not be stretched towards an in-depth examination in the offices of the Administrator in order to clarify the meaning of the provision of section 15 of the Contracts Law, including as to the circumstances of the possibility of taking the land back by the manager or his policy in the matter (see further: section 43 of the summaries of defendant 3).