The plaintiffs also argued that the fact that Goren did not meet most of them at the time of the transfer of the hearing place does not extricate him from the clutches of their deception, as defined in section 15 of the Contracts (General Part) Law, 5733-1973 (hereinafter: the "Contracts Law"). This is because, according to section 15 of the Contracts Law, deception can be attributed even when the misleading person is "other" on behalf of the sender. This deception amounts to "even fraud and deception, and certainly gross negligence" (section 26 of the lawsuit).
The plaintiffs further claimed many legal grounds, including error, an illegal contract (against the background of the reduced consideration amounts recorded in the contracts compared to the amounts actually paid), oppression, fraud (since the prices of the land plots are tens of times higher than their real value), negligence, breach of statutory duty (against the background of a violation of provisions of the Sale Law, 5728-1968), violation of the Real Estate Brokers Law, 5756-1996 (in relation to Mr. Dahari, who according to the claim did not act faithfully and in an acceptable manner and even had a personal interest in the real estate). The Consumer Protection Law, 5741-1981 and Violation of the Rules of the Bar Association (Professional Ethics), 5746-1986 (in relation to the transfer of the Goren hearing venue and the transfer of a concealed hearing venue).
It was argued that if the defendants had disclosed to the plaintiffs about clause 15 of the lease contract, the plaintiffs would not have signed the contracts.
As to their damages, a number of main damages were claimed: one, the amount paid by the plaintiffs for the plots of land. Second, the profit that the plaintiffs would have been able to derive had the lease contracts in relation to the land parcels not included the restitution clause included in section 15. With regard to the remedy relating to cancellation and restitution, the plaintiffs were aware that they were unable to return the plots of land to defendant 4, since these plots were returned to the manager, and therefore claimed that they were entitled to the difference between the payment they paid for the plots and the real value of the plots "had they been presented with the full information regarding clause 15 of the contract between the manager and defendant 1 (as stated, this value is proven by the expert appraiser's opinion attached)" (Section 75 of the lawsuit). Alternatively, the plaintiffs petitioned for reliance damages, including alternative loss of opportunities. As an additional alternative argument, it was argued that the reliance compensation should be calculated by means of an appraisal of the value of similar privately owned plots of land (even though the plots in our case are not private) after a change of designation. In accordance with the calculations they attached, and for fee purposes only, the plaintiffs put the amount of their damages at ILS 6,600,000 (it should be noted in this context that in the original statement of claim that was filed several months earlier, the claim was half of the amount, in the sum of ILS 3,300,000).