Even before we detail how, in the circumstances of the case, we should deviate from the reciprocal requirement of restitution, we will detail our position regarding the other remedies to which the plaintiffs petitioned.
The Requirement of Alternative Remedies
Alternatively, the plaintiffs petitioned for a damages award according to two alternative methods: according to the first way, the calculation of the value of the land as of the date of filing the statement of claim, "as if the manager could not return it to himself..., that is, as if there was no clause 15 in the contract between the manager and defendant 1" (paragraph 79 of the claim). This is in accordance with the opinion attached to the lawsuit. According to the second approach, compensation for lost opportunities is an alternative by way of calculating the difference between the value of other real estate "in the same area, privately owned, at the time of purchase" and the value of that real estate "today after the change of designation" (ibid., section 82). This is because, according to the claimant, it is "reasonable and reasonable" (ibid.) to assume that the plaintiffs would have purchased private plots in that area, if they had been aware that the land they purchased from defendant 4 was covered by the provision of clause 15 of the contract (see further: the argument of the plaintiffs' counsel in the pro proceeds of the hearing of June 1, 2020, p. 5, paras. 30-31). In accordance with the calculations that are the subject of the opinion attached to the claim, and for fee purposes only, the plaintiffs set the amount of their damages at ILS 6,600,000 (it should be noted in this context that in the original statement of claim that was filed a few months earlier, the claim was half of the amount, in the sum of ILS 3,300,000).
However, the two alternatives to which the plaintiffs, who are the object of the alternative remedies, suffer from legal setbacks.
The First Failure
The plaintiffs argued that they should be awarded compensation based on a uniform parameter. On the other hand, in the course of the evidentiary hearings, some of the plaintiffs claimed that they would have acted differently with the funds in which they purchased the plots of land, and other plaintiffs did not even know how they would have invested these funds. The plaintiffs did not even know the basis for the compensation demand of each of them in the statement of claim. In this sense, the demand for uniform compensation for all the plaintiffs is inconsistent with the fact that the number of plaintiffs is as numerous as their claims regarding the manner in which their money was invested in an alternative manner.