Indeed. Given that the restitution provisions originate in the rules of justice and honesty, which are rooted in the doctrine of enrichment and not in law, the principle of restitution in the cancellation of a contract due to a defect in its conclusion also applies to the rule of full or partial exemption from restitution. Therefore, "in special and exceptional cases" (paragraph 11 of the judgment in the Avraham Faraj case), the court may deviate from the requirement of restitution and adapt it to the purpose of doing relative justice between the parties, and thus bring about a fair result that will balance the conflicting interests, and at the same time, be consistent with the values of social honesty.
The premature, planned and improper conduct of the relocation of the Goren hearing requires a balance between the products of restitution, as will be explained below. To this must be added the fact that the land did not remain in the hands of the plaintiffs, so that it cannot be said that they enriched themselves unlawfully, by way of receiving the consideration they paid back to them and leaving the land in their hands, "in the sense of holding on to this and that, do not rest your hand" (paragraph 43 of the judgment of the Honorable Justice Y. Amit, Other Municipality Applications 4948/13, Adv. Yaakov Harkabi v. Michael Avni; (March 15, 2015) hereinafter: the "Compound Matter"). The combination of these things shows that even though we are not dealing with cancellation and restitution in the classical sense, I am of the opinion that a foundation was laid to exempt the plaintiffs from returning the land to defendant 4.
Indeed. The plaintiffs are also aware that they do not have the power to demand revocation and restitution "in the classic sense of restitution" (paragraph 75 of the claim). Therefore, the defendants petitioned the debtor "in the sense of the difference between the payment paid by the plaintiffs for the land they purchased and the real value of the land they purchased if they had been presented with the full information regarding clause 15 of the contract between the manager and defendant 1 (as stated, this value is proven by the expert appraiser's opinion attached)" (ibid.). In other words, the plaintiffs petitioned to charge the defendants with the difference between the amount they actually paid and the actual cost at which defendant 4 purchased the land from the administration. Without addressing the question of whether this demand indicates an error in the feasibility of the transaction (which is relevant to the question of whether there is a reason to cancel the agreement), in my opinion there is room to deviate from the reciprocal requirement of restitution and to adapt it to the purpose of doing relative justice between the parties, all as will be explained below.