Moreover. Even with regard to the award of positive damages, which derive from that transaction, it has already been held that "if the claim of deception had been claimed and proven against the sellers of the lots, then the respondents' remedy would be cancellation and restitution of the consideration against the return of the plots (section 21 of the Contracts Law). Thus, for example, in other municipal applications 9645/06 Kidmat Dekel in a tax appeal v. Yitzhak Amar (March 12, 2009), a claim of deception was accepted, and it was held that if the erring party had known the state of affairs in its entirety, it would have refrained from entering into the contract, and in any case it would not have suffered damage as a result of the failure to perform the contract. Therefore, the party who was misled is entitled to restitution following the cancellation of the contract, but is not entitled to agreed compensation or compensation for the loss of expected profit" (section 33 in the Vehicle matter).
For the sake of completeness, it should be noted that the expert on behalf of the plaintiffs did indeed mention in his opinion a different basis for comparing agricultural lands leased from the same area in Ashkelon (p. 11 of the opinion). However, in all the few examples cited by the expert, we are dealing with lands leased from the Administration and not private lands (see also his interrogation, at p. 524, paras. 21-25). In any event, the plaintiffs petitioned, as stated, to make a calculation according to agricultural lands in that area that do not include a restitution clause in the event of a change of designation, but with regard to the comparison lands detailed by the expert in that area, he noted that "all of them have a restitution clause" (p. 583, s. 16) and that lands without a restitution clause "is a concept that does not exist" (p. 500, s. 23). Alternatively, the plaintiffs petitioned for compensation for alternative loss of opportunities in relation to private lands in that area (paragraph 82 of the statement of claim), but in this context as well, all the examples of comparison mentioned by the expert in that area are leased lands from the Administration and not private lands. This means, therefore, that the examples of the comparison that the expert detailed on page 11 of his opinion are not relevant to our case. In response to the court's question as to why he listed the examples regarding the leased lands in the same area, when he said that when the designation was changed they would be taken back by the administrator, the expert replied, "I think that the assumption... The question is incorrect, because people buy agricultural land for agriculture, and these transactions embody agricultural land" (p. 525, paras. 20-23). However, in our case, there is no dispute that none of the plaintiffs purchased the agricultural land for the purposes of agricultural crops.