Plaintiff No. 4, who moved the venue of the Ariel Cohen hearing, claimed that he was "a solid person, not an investor" (p. 327, para. 29). According to him, apartment prices have risen in recent years, and in this context, "I remember that my uncle, for example, suggested to me, told me, that I was interested in an apartment in Kiryat HaYovel for three rooms for a million shekels, and I regret that I didn't buy it instead of investing it in investments" (p. 327, s. 34 to p. 328, s. 2). Later in his interrogation, Mr. Cohen claimed that "I was debating between the two transactions" (p. 351, paras. 8-9), and that "it is possible that I would have invested in this residential apartment" (ibid., para. 17). After the transfer of the venue, Cohen no longer hesitated and knew how to clearly say that he would have invested in the purchase of a residential apartment (ibid., paras. 22-23). When asked why, therefore, he did not file a lawsuit regarding the loss of an alternative opportunity to purchase that apartment, he replied, "But it could be, or I would have bought, if there had been another good deal of private agricultural land, maybe, I don't know what, I might have gone for it, but I remember that at the time, at the same time, I was also debating a residential apartment" (p. 351 Q. 29-32).
It appears from the words of the attorney who transferred the place of Cohen's hearing that insofar as he had not purchased the agricultural land that is the subject of the lawsuit, it is possible that he would have purchased a certain alternative apartment in Jerusalem as offered to him by his relative. No data was brought regarding that apartment, and in any event, the transfer of the venue Cohen did not petition for the loss of an alternative opportunity in respect of that apartment. Indeed, when asked by the court how his claim was consistent with the fact that in the statement of claim he did not sue for the same apartment but for other damages, he replied that it was possible that he would have purchased private agricultural land, "if there had been a different transaction". However, since it was not claimed that there was any other private land relevant at the time in respect of which Cohen was allegedly interested in moving the venue for the Cohen hearing, and taking into account the fact that the latter testified that he was a "solid person, not an investor", it is clearly interpreted that his alternative answer was intended to fit his words to the subsequent question that was presented to him, but his answer does not reflect the reality as it would have occurred in real time.