Thus, in paragraph 13 of his affidavit, Cohen claimed that he had read the contract in the office of the transfer of a place of hearing, and that the contract seemed reasonable to him, as he defined it, but according to him, "I am a lawyer by profession, but my occupation is in the field of torts (personal injury) and I have no idea about the field of real estate in general and in matters of administrative lands and/or agricultural land in particular, and therefore I did not know that there was another agreement between Alon Goren and the manager, and I certainly did not know about clause 15 of the contract..." Even in the transfer of the venue of the hearing, Junger argued so in fairly identical wording (paragraph 13 of his affidavit). It is not clear how the claim of plaintiffs 4-5, the lawyers in the class, that they have no idea about real estate, is consistent with their claim to the other members of the class that "they are not familiar with any such practice." If the lawyers are not familiar with real estate law, it is not clear from where they can say that they are not familiar with a practice in which the administrator returns the lands to him in the event of a change of designation (regarding the additional responsibility that lies with a person who takes upon himself to give advice that requires professional knowledge, without being a professional in the field, see, Civil Appeal 86/76 "Amidar" The National Company for Housing Olim in Israel in Tax Appeal v. Avraham Aharon, 32(2) 337 (1978)).
This is especially true when Mr. Sidon testified that what was stated in the article and his conversation with the real estate man caused him to be "very upset" after he realized "that there is a chance that we ate it," and even Mr. Shimoni testified that he thought at the time that "there is a chance... It can be" (ibid., p. 1539 of Prov. Sh. 7-9). The plaintiffs consciously chose to turn off the bright 'warning lights' that were lit among them, despite the real fear that appeared in the hearts of Mr. Sidon and Mr. Shimoni that the land would be taken back to the Administration, and they did not even bother to check the matter with the relevant parties, even though these are fairly simple checks (telephone calls to the transfer of the place of the hearing from Mualem and to the transfer of the place of the Goren hearing, as well as an examination at the offices of the Israel Land Authority). In my opinion, if these warning signs did not lead the plaintiffs to examine the matter by fairly simple means, while making a conscious choice to remain in factual obscurity, this shows that even if they had known about clause 15 at the time the contracts were signed, they would have signed them.