Mr. Shimoni further claimed that he had spoken with Mr. Dahari but did not know that he had to clarify the matter with his counsel, and that the place of the hearing was transferred to Mu'alem (ibid., at p. 1532, question 4; ibid., at p. 1536, questions 3-4). He further added that he did not remember what Mr. Dahari relied on in his reply to him that there was no concern that the Administrator would take back the land (ibid., p. 1533, s. 10).
In this context, I will first note that the plaintiffs' choice not to contact their counsel at that time, the transfer of the place of discussion from Mualem, strengthens my conclusion that prior to the signing of the agreements, the transfer of the place of discussion Mualem told them about clause 15 of the lease contract, otherwise - following the prominent concern raised by Mr. Sidon shortly after the signing of the contracts - it could have been expected that the plaintiffs would resent their counsel for why he did not clarify to them about clause 15 prior to the signing of the contracts. Certainly, their choice not to turn to him is not understood at all. In contrast to this matter, with regard to the delays in the transfer of the rights in their name shortly after the purchase, all the plaintiffs knew very well how to turn to the transfer of the place of hearing in this matter (see, for example, paragraph 15 of the affidavit of the transferee of the place of the Junger hearing; the investigation of Elia Shimoni at p. 1537, paras. 12-20). In any event, there is no dispute that none of the plaintiffs contacted the transfer of the place of discussion from Mu'alem or to the transfer of the place of the Goren meeting and did not examine the matter in the offices of the Director, except for a single conversation that Mr. Sidon had with Mr. Dahari, even though the latter is not a lawyer and cannot testify about the wording of the contract and its possible legal consequences.
Mr. Shimoni admitted that he thought at the time, in 2012, that "there is a chance... It may be" (ibid., p. 1539 of Prov. Sh. 7-9), that the administrator would take the land back into his possession. Notwithstanding the aforesaid, the plaintiffs were satisfied with clarifying the matter with Mr. Dahari "and we cancelled it" (ibid., s. 21).