Anyway. After the meeting at the office of the Moalem Hearing Place, Mr. Shimoni, the representative of Plaintiffs 3-7, together with Mr. Dahari, approached the seller Goren Hearing Place, and a few minutes later he again said that he had handed over the money to the seller.
The version of the defendant that Cohen's hearing, on various levels, raises a difficulty in itself, and is not reliable in my opinion.
I have already noted that Mr. Sidon testified that after he understood that there was a concern that the manager would take the land back into his possession, following reading the article and his conversation with a professional, he did not turn to examine the matter with the counsel for plaintiffs 3-7, the transfer of a concealed hearing place, as well as the transfer of the Goren hearing place or the ILA's offices. This is because, according to him, he was not "the legal proprietary authority in our group" (p. 1467 of Prov. Sh. 11-12). Instead, Mr. Sidon claimed that he had contacted the two lawyers in the group, and that Cohen's hearing venue had been moved and Junger's hearing had been relocated, who had told him "that they were not familiar with any such practice" (ibid., p. 1469, para. 18). Therefore, it is difficult to reconcile Cohen's claim in his affidavit that "I have no idea in the field of real estate...", while Mr. Sidon testified that Cohen actually knew how to tell his friends in a confident voice that he was not familiar with "such a practice" in which the land is returned to the administration. Anyone who testifies that he does not know anything about real estate law is expected not to give advice that requires professional knowledge. In any event, while Cohen claimed that "I have no idea in the field of real estate...", Mr. Shimoni actually testified that the relocation of the venue of the Cohen hearing "was the leader in contractual-proprietary matters" (p. 1507, question 19).
Cohen's additional claim in his affidavit that "I did not know that there was another agreement between Alon Goren and the manager," is contradicted by his other claim that "I read the contract while staying in the office of the concealed meeting place, and the contract seemed reasonable to me" (paragraph 13 of his affidavit). In the laconic contract signed by Cohen, it is explicitly stated, "The seller is the owner of the lease rights from the Israel Lands Administration" (the preamble to the contract), and that "the buyer declares... Because he knows that the property is agricultural land..." (Clause 5 of the contract). In these circumstances, it is not clear how the transfer of the venue of the Cohen hearing can claim that he did not know that there was a contract between defendant 4 and the manager. Apart from the fact that the party who signs a document is held to have read it and understood its results, and he cannot be heard on the claim that he did not know what he signed and what he undertook (see, for example: Civil Appeal 121/70 Giladi v. Orion Insurance Company Ltd., IsrSC 25(1) 648 (1971)), Mr. Cohen is a lawyer by training. It is presumed that even if, as he claims, he is not proficient in real estate law, the plain meaning of a contract is not out of the hands of Scripture. When it is stated in the contract that the seller is the holder of lease rights from the manager, it is necessary that the place of discussion was transferred and Cohen knew that the seller's rights were derived from the lease rights in the contract with the manager.