Fifth, the plaintiffs stated that they had come to the office of the transfer of the place of hearing Mualem because they were equipped with all the significant sums of money that they were required to pay in cash, and in fact, they transferred these sums to Mr. Dahari even though they had not yet signed the contracts. Given this, it appears that the plaintiffs did not attach any importance to the wording of the contract and the terms that would appear therein, since, since they wanted the transaction, they made sure to obtain the full consideration in advance and transfer it to Mr. Dahari, regardless of the wording of the contract that they would be required to sign before the transfer of a place of discussion. In fact, Mualem declared, and his version was not contradicted, that the contracts were brought to his office signed by Goren (paragraph 6.2 of his affidavit). Transferring the venue of the hearing Junger had difficulty in his interrogation whether the contract had already been signed by the transfer of the venue of the Goren hearing when he came to the office of the court of the transfer of the place of hearing from Mualem (p. 236, paras. 32-33). Since the contract was signed by the transfer of the Goren hearing place in advance, including regarding the amount of consideration, it is obvious that the plaintiffs were required to sign it without the ability to change any stipulation, whatever its wording.
More than all the plaintiffs, Mr. Horowitz was able to admit that he had not seen the wording of the contract at all before his son signed it, in his name (p. 38, paras. 22-30; ibid., p. 62, s. 33). Mr. Hurwitz provided his son with all the proceeds in cash in advance, without considering the terms of the contract or its wording. Even after the transfer of the venue of the hearing, Cohen testified that he took the money out of the bank a week before the contract was signed (p. 431, paras. 6-8). When asked whether this does not indicate that he intended to sign the contract in any case, whatever its wording or terms, he replied, "Not at any price. I mean, if I saw that there was some problem..." (p. 432, s. 10-11). In practice, Cohen admitted that at the time of signing the contract, he encountered a "problem" when he was required to record in the contract a lower sum than he had paid. According to him, this demand "bothered me a lot at the time, to say the least," but "...I understood that it was not possible to obtain this because it was a condition of principle that the seller meant, and we simply had no other choice but to agree to it" (paragraph 10 of his affidavit). In other words. Despite his claim in his interrogation that if he had encountered a "problem" he would not have signed the contract, in practice, when he was required to register a lower sum, Cohen did not refrain from signing the contract. It is only that he intended to sign the contract in any case.