Moreover. The plaintiffs' claim in this matter is not possible for any additional reason. The plaintiffs in fact petitioned for reliance compensation (the sums they paid for the land) alongside subsistence compensation based on the profit they would have made from that transaction had clause 15 not been included in the contracts.
The plaintiffs argued that the demand for compensation from that transaction if section 15 had not existed, is not subsistence damages, but rather reliance damages (section 79 for the plaintiffs). In this the plaintiffs are mistaken. In the case law, the Honorable Supreme Court noted the distinction between subsistence damages and reliance damages, and thus held, "The purpose of compensation in contract law is to place the injured party in the same place where he would have stood had the contract been properly fulfilled ("subsistence interest" or "expectation interest"). Alongside the subsistence interest, the "reliance interest" is recognized, and the compensation given in respect of this interest means to entitle the injured party to "negative damages", i.e., compensation intended to indemnify the victim, in principle, for expenses incurred and damages caused to him as a result of the performance of the contract: to place the injured party in the same place where he would have stood had the contract not been concluded. The interest of existence is like looking to the future, while the interest of reliance is like looking to the past" (Civil Appeal 3666/90 Hotel Tzukim in Tax Appeal v. Netanya Municipality, 46(4) 45, 74 (1992)).
In other words. When the plaintiffs petition for compensation "of profit from that transaction (if there was no deception)" (section 79 of the claim), they in fact seek to place them in the same place where they would have stood if the contract had been fulfilled without clause 15. They do not wish to place them in the same place they would have been if the contract had not been concluded, since in this situation they can only petition for the expenses they incurred and the damages caused to them, including by way of an alternative loss of opportunities, as opposed to the original transaction with a change that does not include clause 15.