We foresaw, therefore, that the transfer of the Goren hearing place and to defendant 4, as opposed to the other defendants, arose from the recording of the lower sums in the contracts compared to the sums they actually received, and that as a result they enriched themselves unlawfully. In light of all of the above, as will be detailed below, as opposed to the transfer of the venue of the hearing from Mualem and Mr. Dahari, the manner in which the venue was moved leads to the conclusion that he and defendant 4 should be obligated to provide legal relief in favor of the plaintiffs.
The Plaintiffs' Damages and the Remedies They Petitioned
The core of the lawsuit, as stated, lies in the plaintiffs' claim that the defendants concealed clause 15 of the lease contract that was entered into with the manager from them. In the face of this, we have seen so far that all the plaintiffs knew of the existence of the lease contract prior to their signing of the contracts with defendant 4. However, while plaintiffs 3-7 also knew about clause 15 of the lease contract and the risk that the manager would take the land back into his possession, plaintiffs 1-2 did not know about it.
As it stands, on the face of it, there is difficulty in reconciling the claim of plaintiffs 3-7 regarding the damage that was allegedly caused to them as a result of concealing the existence of section 15. However, for the reasons that will be detailed below, I am of the opinion that in the circumstances of the case, their claim should not be dismissed in its entirety. This conclusion is even more valid with respect to plaintiffs 1-2, from whom the transfer of the venue of the Goren hearing concealed the provision of clause 15 of the lease contract.
Indeed, in the statement of claim, the plaintiffs further claimed that in the contracts they signed, sums were specified that did not match the amounts they actually paid, and that as a result, false reports were made to the tax authorities. However, these facts were known to all the plaintiffs before the contracts were signed, and they cooperated with them. In these circumstances, there is no reason to accept their argument that the manner in which Goren moved the place of hearing in the matter amounts to deception, tort or other contractual or legal breach, where the plaintiffs admit that they knew that the sums specified in the contracts were not the sums they actually paid, and in any event, that false reports would be made to the tax authorities.