In view of my conclusion, I do not need to address the dispute between the parties, as the provision of section 8 of the Statute of Limitations applies in our case (see the reply submitted by the plaintiffs), including whether the plaintiffs had a "lead" regarding the relevant data (see, for example, Civil Appeal Authority 901/07 State of Israel v. Atomic Energy Commission v. Guy-Lippel (September 19, 2010); Civil Appeal 2720/08 Simone Jean v. Piotr Liebman (August 23, 2012)).
The Normative Aspect
Other Municipality Applications 2274/21 Neta Mor v. Elad Israel Residences in a Tax Appeal (January 1, 2023) The Honorable Supreme Court addressed the appellant's argument that the respondents, contracting companies, had breached the disclosure obligations imposed on them towards her, when they did not disclose to her on their own initiative information about the blocking of the view from the apartment from which she had purchased "on paper". The Honorable Justice Stein noted that two provisions of the law establish a duty of disclosure at the pre-contractual stage. One is the duty of disclosure derived from the duty of good faith in negotiations, which is set forth in section 12(a) of the Contracts Law, and the other is the duty of disclosure set forth in section 15 of the Contracts Law, according to which deception is "the failure to disclose facts which, according to law, custom or according to circumstances, the other party should have disclosed". These are the general disclosure obligations, alongside specific disclosure obligations that are stipulated in various legal provisions, taking into account the scope of a given case. The Honorable Justice Stein further ruled that the scope of the general disclosure obligations, by virtue of the good faith in section 12(a) of the Contracts Law and by virtue of the circumstances in section 15 of the Contracts Law, varies according to the specific circumstances of the negotiations, including the balance of power and the information gaps between the parties to the negotiations (paragraph 80 of the judgment). In that case, it was determined that between a contractor or a real estate developer and an ordinary person who purchases an apartment "on paper", there are significant information gaps and power gaps. In contrast to the contractor, the ordinary person lacks planning knowledge and lacks professional experience, and in any case, the configuration of the final apartment depends to a large extent on the wishes and actions of the contractor, which in many cases the buyer is not aware of and in any case cannot influence them. From these gaps and from the duty of good faith in negotiations, an increased duty of disclosure is derived, which applies to the contractor who sells apartments "on paper".