Moreover. In his interrogation into the matter, Mr. Sidon initially claimed that he had initiated the meeting with the transfer of the Goren hearing venue under false pretenses. According to him, he asked the relocation of the Goren meeting place to meet in order to consider purchasing additional lands (p. 1234 of Prov. S. 7-13), while his real intention was to "wonder about the jar" of the transfer of the Goren hearing place in the wake of "my red lights" (p. 1236, paras. 9-10). In fact, he says, "that was the real purpose of my meeting" (ibid., paras. 24-25; ibid., at p. 1237, paras. 1-2), since he was of the opinion that there was a problem with the reliability of the transferee's place of discussion (ibid., at p. 1236, paras. 11-12). Mr. Sidon claimed that he did not play the recording to his friends, because "it is completely distorted," although he immediately afterwards retracted his statement and said, "In my opinion, it is not disturbed" (ibid., pp. 1236, paras. 19-21). In any event, Mr. Sidon replied to Goren's transfer of the place of discussion, "I left with the feeling that there is no knee in you without proof" (sic.) (ibid., s. 23; Ibid., p. 1237, paras. 17-18).
It appears from the aforesaid that Mr. Sidon came to his meeting with the Goren Hearing Authority in order to "wonder about his pot", since he suspected that he had concealed from the plaintiffs that the administration might take the lands back into his possession. At the end of the meeting, he noted that his concerns had been confirmed, since Goren's relocation did not seem credible in his eyes. Despite this. Never again did Mr. Sidon and his fellow plaintiffs do anything. The plaintiffs did not call their attorney to transfer the place of the hearing from Mualem, nor did they examine the matter in the director's offices, despite the fact that Mr. Sidon testified that he had "red lights."
We learned that in 2012, shortly after the contracts were signed, Mr. Sidon read an article in the newspaper and was impressed by a conversation with a real estate agent, "that there is a chance that we ate it and that the manager might use his right to return the land to himself. I shared this information with my friends but they rejected it outright..." (para. 18 of his affidavit). Although they claimed that they would not have entered into contracts if they had known about clause 15, it was clearly interpreted that even when they were informed in 2012 that it was possible for the manager to take the land back into his possession, plaintiffs 3-7 preferred not to examine the matter by fairly simple means, whether with their counsel for the transfer of the place of the hearing or with the seller, or with the office of the director. Mr. Sidon was not satisfied with the inaction of plaintiffs 3-7 in the matter, and in the following year, in 2013, he initiated a meeting with the Goren Hearing Authority in order to question his position on the matter. At the end of the meeting, Mr. Zidon claimed that it was clear to him that he did not believe that Goren was being relocated. Insofar as Mr. Sidon did not believe in the transfer of the Goren meeting place, it is not clear why he initiated the meeting with him, and once he initiated the meeting and learned that he could not trust him, it was not clarified why he did not continue to examine the matter with the seller after the transfer of the meeting place from Mualem or to the manager's offices. It is only because Mr. Sidon and his friends advocated his statement that "it is worth it for me to take the risk," and consciously turned their eyes to the possibility that the manager would take the land back into his possession.