In light of all the above, Mr. Sidon was asked why he did not act at the time of discovery to cancel the contract, when he already knew that there was a chance that the manager would return the land to his lap. To which he replied, "I wanted to, they didn't want to. They didn't want to" (ibid., p. 1213, s. 6). Mr. Zidon further added that "socially I am part of a herd" (p. 1212, s. 13), and that "I would not be a plaintiff without them. There is no, there is no chance" (ibid., p. 1209, s. 15; Ibid., p. 1211, paras. 13-14). He also claimed that "I wouldn't do it without them. No way. I'm not, they're good friends of mine, I'm not going to go alone and sue and that's it. No, I won't... I will not sue without them" (p. 1309, paras. 8-12; See also: ibid., p. 1211, paras. 25-26).
In particular, Mr. Sidon was asked by his counsel, who was transferred to the place of the hearing, why he did not contact him at the time when he was his counsel. To this, he gave a vague and incomprehensible answer, according to which "from a legal standpoint, I buy... Socially, I am part of a herd" (ibid., p. 1212, paras. 10-13).
It seems that there is no explicit explanation of this. Mr. Sidon testified that already a few months after the signing of the contract, he understood, on the basis of reading an article and talking to a real estate agent, "that there was a chance that we ate it." This is against the background of the fact that "the administrator is liable to make use of his right to return the land to himself." Therefore, he immediately contacted his friends, but they "rejected it outright," and "were not bothered by it," as he put it. Mr. Shimoni's appeal to Mr. Dahari did not satisfy Mr. Sidon, and as he put it, "I did not buy it." In fact, Mr. Zidon testified that he did not contact their counsel for Mualem or the seller to move the Goren hearing place in order to examine the matter, because he was "part of a herd". According to him, he wanted to cancel the agreement at the time due to the surprising and disturbing discovery, but his friends claimed that he was "babbling," without bothering to examine the matter as required by the administration or by the relevant parties who accompanied the transaction.