Having said this, we will turn to the layout of the facts in light of the arguments of the parties.
Who are the litigants
The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916
12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D. 51 (2)Before we elaborate on the plaintiffs' claims to a few, it is worth emphasizing at this stage that the plaintiffs' group is in fact composed of two subgroups, plaintiffs 1-2 (wife and son-in-law) and plaintiffs 3-7 (a group of friends and acquaintances). There is no prior acquaintance between the various groups of plaintiffs, and the only connection that served as a basis for joining them together in the statement of claim lies in the fact that we are dealing with a similar set of facts and seemingly identical claims against the defendants. We will disagree, therefore, we have discussed the matter of plaintiffs 1-2 on the one hand and the plaintiffs 3-7 on the other, and then we will convene on the products of their joint arguments.
All of the plaintiffs were interested in purchasing agricultural land in the northern industrial zone in Ashkelon. Defendant 1, Adv. Alon Goren (hereinafter: "Goren Hearing Place Transfer"), sold to the plaintiffs - through defendant 4, a company he owns - plots of agricultural land. Defendant 2, Adv. Zvika Mualem (hereinafter: "Mualem Venue Transfer") served as counsel for plaintiffs 3-7 in the transactions for the purchase of these parcels of land. Alongside them, defendant 3, Mr. Shlomi Dahari, a real estate broker by profession (hereinafter: "Mr. Dahari"), served as the marketing person and broker of these parcels of land and acted on behalf of the Goren Hearing Authority.
Well, an act that was alleged to have taken place is summarized by the various plaintiffs in the amended statement of claim that was filed on February 27, 2019.
Plaintiffs' Arguments 1-2
Plaintiffs 1 and 2 reside in London.
In 2010, plaintiff 1, Mr. Netanel Attias (hereinafter: "Mr. Attias") heard from plaintiff 2, his mother-in-law (hereinafter: "Mrs. Vyshevsky"), that there was an "attractive" possibility (paragraph 3 of the lawsuit) to purchase land in the area of the northern entrance to Ashkelon, through an acquaintance of his mother-in-law, who goes by the name Avishai Nitzan. Mr. Nitzan was working at the time in Mr. Dahari's real estate office. After several conversations between Mr. Attias and Mr. Nitzan, Mr. Attias felt that his questions had not been answered properly. Therefore, Mr. Attias continued to talk about it with Mr. Dahari. In the summer of 2011, Mr. Attias decided to come to Israel in order to examine the proposed deal, we spoke for a long time with Mr. Dahari, went out with him to the field, looked at the map of the area and even heard from Mr. Dahari about other names who had purchased agricultural plots of land in the area. The next day, the two met again, and Mr. Dahari further claimed that even the mayor of Ashkelon at the time, Mr. Benny Vaknin, had purchased a plot of land in the area. Mr. Dahari suggested that they proceed to the transfer of a place of discussion in order to sign a transaction for the purchase of a plot of land, and that "the owner will come to take the money, not to talk to him or ask anything, and it is possible to say congratulations to everyone" (paragraph 3(d) of the lawsuit).