Thus, plaintiff No. 1, Mr. Netanel Attias, claimed in his interrogation that if he had not invested in the purchase of the land that is the subject of the lawsuit, he might have considered purchasing another apartment in Afula, where his mother lived (p. 921 of Pro. S. 25 to P. 922, S. 7). When Mr. Attias was asked in his interrogation how his claim is consistent with the fact that his claim is not based on the values of another apartment in Afula, he replied, "It is that in this matter, Your Honor, I am really not involved" (ibid., Q. 18). In any event, Mr. Atias added that his considerations for purchasing another apartment in Afula were only "in thought" (ibid., p. 923, Q. 6).
Plaintiff No. 2, Ms. Vyszewski, claimed in her interrogation that she was demanding compensation for having "deceived me" (p. 1047, question 25), but she does not know the amount of compensation (p. 1048, question 1). According to her, she is suing "all my investment... And also all the anguish of the soul" (ibid., Sh. 8-12). She later claimed that she "sues for everything I invested" (ibid., question 18), but that her counsel determined the amount (p. 1049, question 2). Ms. Vyshevsky did not clarify where she would have invested the money if she had not purchased the plot of land that is the subject of the lawsuit, but only claimed that she would have claimed her investment.
Plaintiff No. 3, Mr. Yaakov Horowitz, claimed in his interrogation that if he had not invested in the purchase of the land that is the subject of the lawsuit, "I could have done many other things with it" (p. 23 of Prov. S. 22). According to him, he demands "the investment that I have invested... plus all the profits I could have made on it if I had invested it in another investment" (p. 50, paras. 20-23). When asked what other alternative investment he would have made, he replied: "Even solid, like buying an apartment... Every solid investment is different, simple and the same profits" (ibid., paras. 25-26; See also: ibid., p. 57, paras. 30-31; Ibid., p. 80, s. 11). He later claimed that "it could be" (p. 79, Q. 32) that he would have invested his money in an alternative investment. In an alternative and developing version, Mr. Hurwitz further claimed that "it is possible that I would have invested him in the stock exchange" (p. 80, question 17), but when asked how a conservative investment in solid stocks, insofar as the return of the shares was positive, was consistent with the sums that he and his friends claimed in the statement of claim, he returned to his initial version that "I said this earlier, too, I would have invested in an apartment" (p. 81, question 12). Putting things together, it will show that Mr. Hurwitz had a hard time deciding whether he would have invested his money in the purchase of an apartment (in an unknown location) or whether he would have been "on the stock exchange." According to him, in any case, he would have made a solid investment. Either way, there is nothing between these hypothetical investments and the alternatives according to which the expert on behalf of the plaintiffs assessed the scope of the compensation claimed.