The eagerness of Junger and his friends to sign the contract, despite all of the aforesaid, caused them to not even share with their counsel the surprising demands to bring the full sum in cash, and in particular with regard to the registration of a different amount in the contract compared to the amount actually paid. Moving the venue Junger signed the contract at the office of the concealed meeting venue, and then went out to the corner corner in his office in order to count the amount in cash with Mr. Dahari alone. As I noted above, plaintiffs 3-7, including the transfer of the venue of the Junger hearing, were not at all interested in the article of their counsel at the time of signing the contract. In the panic that gripped them in the pursuit of the coveted contract, they removed from their path any question mark and obstacle, no matter how serious: they were not moved by false reports to the tax authorities; they were not bothered by signing a contract that did not reflect reality, and they were not interested in the provisions of the contracts they signed, otherwise - at least the lawyers in the group would have wanted to see the lease with the manager, and at least wanted to understand the meaning of the land being leased from the manager.
Moreover. Moving the venue of the hearing Junger further claimed that "after a few months" (paragraph 16 of the affidavit), apparently after the signing of the contract, "rumors reached my ears that there was a possibility that in the event of a change in designation, the land would return to the Administration" (ibid.). According to him, Mr. Shimoni told him and the other plaintiffs that he had spoken with Mr. Dahari, who was satisfied "that this was not relevant to our case and even suggested that we try to sell the land..." (ibid., ibid.). This version raises considerable difficulty. In other words, after the transfer of the venue of the hearing, Junger claimed, as you may recall, that "if I had known that in such a case the land would return to the Administration, it is clear that I would not have entered into such an agreement..." (ibid., paragraph 21 of his affidavit). Insofar as this argument reflects the situation in its entirety, one might have expected that when "rumors" reached his ears that the land might return to the Administrator in the event of a change of designation, that he would do what he claimed he would have done in the first place. In other words, after the transfer of the venue of the hearing, Junger could have immediately approached his counsel for the transfer of the place of the hearing in order to examine the claim. He could even have examined the matter with the seller after the transfer of the Goren meeting, and if he did not trust them, he would have had the power to examine this in the offices of the manager. Instead, the transfer of the venue of the hearing relied on statements he heard from his friend Mr. Shimoni about a conversation he had with Mr. Dahari, who is not a lawyer and certainly cannot provide an answer in relation to an issue involving legal aspects. If Junger had done so, against any of the aforementioned parties, he would have been able to prevent all the damage to which he claims, since he could have requested the cancellation of the transaction close to the date of the signing of the contract, and at the very least could have filed an appropriate claim at that time.