Defendants 1-4, Transfer of Hearing Place Alon Goren and Keren Yosef Haim Ltd.
In the statement of defense filed by defendants 1 and 4, it was argued that the causes of action were erroneously rooted in the feasibility of the transaction that became apparent to the plaintiffs in retrospect. This mistake caused the plaintiffs, with the stroke of a pen, to double the amount of the claim compared to the amount they had petitioned in the original statement of claim.
As for plaintiffs 3-7, contrary to what was stated in the original statement of claim, in the amended statement of claim it was suddenly claimed that Goren was their counsel for the transfer of the venue of the Goren hearing, even though they were represented by the transfer of the venue of the hearing and despite the fact that they did not meet the transfer of the venue of the Goren hearing at all before the signing of the contracts, and in any case they did not pay him legal fees. This argument also contradicts what is stated in the contracts signed by the plaintiffs, in which it is explicitly stated that "the buyer is represented in this transaction by Adv. Zvika Mualem on his behalf" (clause 9 of the contracts).
In any event, the transfer of the venue of the hearing Goren transferred to their counsel, the transfer of the place of hearing, the lease contracts with the manager, and this in turn confirmed that he had informed the plaintiffs 3-7 about the contracts and even explicitly clarified to them the matter of clause 15 of the lease contract. In any event, in the contract entered into between these plaintiffs and defendant 4, it was explicitly stated that the land was leased from the Administration. Insofar as plaintiffs 3-7 wished to examine the wording of the lease contract, they were able to do so, especially when some of them were lawyers and all of them were represented by an attorney on their behalf. Since they did not do so, any omission in the matter should not be attributed to the duty of the deceased to move the place of the Goren hearing.