At the hearing on May 3, 2023, the appraiser on behalf of the plaintiffs, Mr. Ron Hever, and Mr. Yoram Buchnik were interrogated.
At the hearing on July 17, 2023, plaintiffs 1 and 2, Mr. Attias and Ms. Vyszyovsky, were interrogated, respectively.
At the hearing on December 28, 2023, plaintiff 6, Mr. Banya Sidon, was interrogated; Plaintiff 7, Mrs. Carmit Shimoni Cohen, as well as Mr. Elia Shimoni, the spouse of plaintiff 7.
On January 30, 2024, February 11, 2024, and February 26, 2024, the transfer of the Alon Goren hearing venue was investigated.
On April 10, 2024, defendant 2 was interrogated, and Zvika Mualem was transferred to the venue of the hearing.
On July 1, 2024, defendant 3, Mr. Shlomi Dahari, was interrogated, and an order was issued to submit summaries.
The plaintiffs' summaries were submitted on December 23, 2024, to which were attached a "Legal Appendix", an "Appendix of Legal Literature" and an "Appendix of Evidence"; The summaries of defendants 1 and 4 were filed on July 31, 2025; Defendant 2's summaries were submitted on July 31, 2025; Defendant 3's summaries were submitted on August 1, 2025.
The Valley of the Dispute that Needs to Be Decided
The main point of the lawsuit revolved around the plaintiffs' claim that at the time of signing the contracts between them and defendant 4, they did not know about the lease agreements signed between the manager and defendant 4. In particular, it was argued that the existence of clause 15 of the lease contract was not brought to their attention, according to which in the event of a change in the designation of the lessee the lessee the manager will be entitled to an early termination of the lease period of the lessee, and that the lessee will be entitled to compensation for the lease right for agricultural cultivation only. According to the plaintiffs, if they had been aware of clause 15 of the lease contract, they would not have signed the contracts.
In these circumstances, we will first examine whether the plaintiffs were able to bear the burden of proving that they did not know about clause 15 of the lease contract. In order to decide this issue, it will be appropriate to make a distinction between the two groups of plaintiffs, plaintiffs 1-2 (wife and son-in-law) and plaintiffs 3-7 (a group of friends and acquaintances). This is because each group signed the contracts against the background of a different factual reality, and in any case there is no dispute that Mualem did not represent plaintiffs 1-2, but only plaintiffs 3-7.