Plaintiff No. 7, Ms. Carmit Shimoni, claimed in her interrogation that at the time of the purchase of the land, "we were told that there would be, there would be, saturated construction" (p. 1319, paras. 4-5). According to her, "We claimed what we lost and also... the value of it" (ibid., p. 1332, paras. 17-19; Ibid., p. 1337, s. 14-15). Mrs. Shimoni Cohen did not know what the components of her claim included, and claimed that "you have to ask the appraiser, I don't know" (p. 1334, question 1). She also added that "I am suing for the injustice and the money I lost" (p. 1335, s. 19). Ms. Shimoni Cohen did not claim even once in her interrogation that she would have acted in accordance with any of the alternatives that served as the basis for the calculation made by the expert on behalf of the plaintiffs. In fact, even at this stage, Mrs. Shimoni Cohen did not specify the exact alternative way in which she would have chosen to invest her money in real time.
The Second Fallacy
According to the two alternatives, the plaintiffs claimed monetary compensation based on potential scenarios in which the first has no possible hold, and the second is based on land in a completely different area (the plaintiffs' expert noted that he examined these alternatives only at the request of the plaintiffs' counsel, and that he did not know why he was required to do so (p. 508, s. 25 to p. 509, s. 1).
Thus, in accordance with the first alternative, the plaintiffs petitioned for compensation as if there was a lease contract with the manager without clause 15. However, it has been proven that the manager does not produce contracts in which clause 15 is not included. Moving the venue of the hearing Raphael Harlap, legal advisor in the Jerusalem Business Area of the ILA, testified that all agricultural leases include a restitution clause (p. 270, s. 35 to p. 271, s. 2), and that when agricultural land undergoes a change of designation, then at the stage of realization, the ILA returns it to its bosom for the purpose of marketing it (ibid., p. 275, s. 2-3). According to him, to the extent that agricultural land undergoes a change of designation, the original lessee will never be able to build on it in accordance with the new plan (ibid., at p. 276, paras. 6-12 and paras. 30-31).