Defendants 1 and 4 further argued that the claim was time-barred, and that there was at least a real delay in its filing. The parent of the engagement between the parties was born more than seven years before the filing of the statement of claim. In fact, the cause of action arose at the time of the signing of the agreements and not on the date on which the plaintiffs became aware that the administration intended to take back the land from them (see the plaintiffs' opposing position in the reply).
Defendants 1 and 4 denied the plaintiffs' claim that the sums recorded in the various contracts were lower than the amounts actually paid. It was argued that after the transfer of the venue of the hearing, Goren received only the sums specified in the contracts and no more. Insofar as the plaintiffs, or some of them, paid additional funds beyond those specified in the contracts, these surplus funds did not reach the point of transferring the Goren hearing place. One way or another, it was claimed that the plaintiffs testify that they carried out non-kosher transactions. Given this, in accordance with the provision of section 30 of the Contracts Law, a contract tainted by illegality is null and void, and it is not lawful that 'wrongful embezzlement will give rise to a right of action'.
It was also argued that the Administration's late decision to carry out a comprehensive and broad process of redemption of agricultural land on a considerable scale was "unprecedented and unprecedented. What had not happened in the history of the State of Israel for some 70 years before, the defendant could not have known in advance" (paragraph 102 of the statement of defense).
As to the scope of the alleged damages, it was argued that at most the plaintiffs had the power to petition for the refund of the sums they paid for the transactions. The sums detailed in the appraiser's opinion on behalf of the plaintiffs do not relate to the basic data of this claim. This is because we are dealing with agricultural lands that were sold to buyers who knew in advance that they were leased lands from the Administration, which includes a clause that allows the redemption of the land in the event of a change of designation. The plaintiffs were even given the opportunity to examine the land and its characteristics. They chose to conduct the transactions despite the risks inherent in the execution of such transactions, in the hope that they would not materialize.