Chapter 2 - If the plaintiffs did not know about clause 15, would they have signed the agreements?
My conclusion so far is that all the plaintiffs were aware that lease agreements had been signed with the manager, but while with respect to plaintiffs 3-7 they were told by the relocation of the hearing site about clause 15 of the lease contract to their signing of the contracts and were even explained to them about the risks, with regard to plaintiffs 1-2, Goren did not tell them about clause 15 and did not explain to them that there was a risk that the manager would take the land back into his possession.
More than necessary, with respect to plaintiffs 3-7, I would like to point out that even if I had reached the conclusion that Mualem had not told them about clause 15 of the lease contract, in the circumstances of the case they would have nevertheless signed the contracts. We have already referred above to the warning signs that these plaintiffs have consciously chosen to remove from their faces. However, it appears that proven evidence that at the time of the signing of the contracts these plaintiffs were not bothered by the matter of clause 15 of the lease contract will be found in the information they received at the beginning of 2012, not long after the signing of the contracts, as well as in the results of the meeting between Mr. Sidon and the transfer of the place of Goren's hearing in the Roladin Storm during the months of March-April 2013.
The material information that the plaintiffs claim they learned about in 2012, and their apparent disregard of it
In his affidavit, plaintiff No. 6, Mr. Benya Sidon, stated, "A few months to a year after the transaction, I understood from a letter in the newspaper and a conversation with a real estate man that there was a chance that we ate it and that the manager might make use of his right to return the land. I shared this information with my friends but they rejected it outright..." (paragraph 18 of his affidavit). It should be noted that Mr. Sidon notes that he thought it was possible for the manager to exercise "his right to reclaim the land." In other words, Mr. Sidon admitted that shortly after signing the contract, he was told that the manager had a "right" to return the land to his lap. He became aware of this fact, as he claimed, after reading an article in the newspaper, as well as in light of a conversation he had with a real estate man. After he said he shared this information with his friends, "they rejected it outright." In his interrogation, Mr. Sidon repeatedly admitted this (p. 1203 of Prov. S. 16; ibid., p. 1207, paras. 24-26), while answering the question of whether "you were shocked at that moment," he answered "correct" (ibid., p. 1203, paras. 17-19).