Summary of the Remedies Chapter
In view of the fact that all the plaintiffs paid defendant 4 (and as a result the transfer of the Goren hearing place) higher sums than those recorded in the contracts they signed, I found that these are illegal contracts which, according to section 30 of the Contracts Law, are null and void. Once the contract is cancelled, each party must return to the other party what it received under the contract. Therefore, defendant No. 4 and the Goren Hearing Center must return to each of the plaintiffs the sum he paid. However, in accordance with my authority in section 31 of the Contracts Law, I have found that from the amount to which each plaintiff is entitled, the "cumulative amount" received as aforesaid will be deducted. These sums must be accompanied by linkage and interest differentials from the date of filing the claim until the date of actual payment, within 45 days from the date of the judgment (see more: Civil Appeal 324/84 Fishel Eisman & Sons in Tax Appeal v. Hagai Urieli, 41(2) 421 (1987)).
It should be emphasized. I have not lost sight of the fact that with respect to plaintiffs 1-2 there is also a defect in the conclusion prior to the signing of the contracts in the form of the concealment of clause 15 of the lease contract. However, in light of the above analysis, I did not find that plaintiffs 1-2 are entitled to additional compensation in excess of the aforesaid, since I rejected their claim regarding the other heads of damage, including subsistence damages or compensation for loss of an alternative opportunity.
The sums that each of the plaintiffs paid to defendant 4, and the restitution and initiation amounts received by the plaintiffs
The sums that each of the plaintiffs paid to defendant 4
Plaintiff 1, Mr. Netanel Attias, paid defendant 4 the sum of ILS 60,000 (paragraph 66 of his affidavit; his interrogation at p. 794, question 24; p. 807, question 16; p. 855, question 11-15 and questions 25-26; p. 1023, question 9-10).