In his interrogation, the expert was also asked whether it is true that the value he estimated in his opinion according to hypothetical assumptions is not a proven value, but rather a speculative one. To this, the expert replied, in his fairness, "I am definitely. Every alternative I wrote that is a theoretical alternative is compatible with one standard exactly as you said. That's right. It is not an alternative that exists in fact, it exists in the contractual or business option between the parties" (p. 575, paras. 8-12). The expert also admitted, "I agree with the premise that a theoretical alternative is difficult to establish the value for" (p. 592, paras. 20-22). In light of these last words, it is no longer clear the empirical basis on which the opinion rests.
Conclusion of the Remedies Chapter
In light of the aforesaid, there is no basis for demanding compensation according to the two alternatives that are the subject of the alternative remedies. However, as I noted above, this does not dismiss the claim in its entirety. In other words, although the plaintiffs are not entitled to a subsistence compensation award or compensation for the loss of an alternative opportunity, but in light of the manner in which Goren was moved, for the reasons that will be detailed below, I have come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs as a whole are entitled to receive the sums they paid to defendant 4 by way of the Goren venue, deducting the sums they received back from the manager and reducing the sums they received in respect of the initiation right (it would have been appropriate for the plaintiffs' expert to refer in his opinion to the deduction of the restitution amounts and the right of initiation, However, according to him, he did not do so because he was not asked to do so - p. 511, paras. 20-24). This conclusion is certainly true with respect to plaintiffs 1-2, from whom Goren's transfer of the venue of the hearing concealed the existence of clause 15 of the lease contract, but it also applies to plaintiffs 3-7, since in all the contracts signed by the plaintiffs, lower sums were recorded than those they actually paid, and thus these are ostensible contracts, as defined in the law and case law.