In light of all the above, it was expected that Mr. Sidon would act to cancel the contract after he understood that there was a considerable chance that in the event of a change in designation, the manager would take the land back into his possession. Mr. Sidon admitted that, indeed, "I wanted to, they didn't want to. They did not want to" (ibid., p. 1213, question 6), but according to him, "socially I am part of a herd" (p. 1212, question 13), and that "I would not have been a plaintiff without them. There is no, there is no chance" (ibid., p. 1209, s. 15; Ibid., p. 1211, s. 13-14; ibid., p. 1309, s. 8-12; see also: ibid., p. 1211, s. 25-26).
Mr. Sidon's conscious choice not to cancel the contract at that time, and at least not to take legal action or any other way that could negate or reduce the alleged damage, is based, according to him, on being "part of a herd". It goes without saying that this argument cannot be heard, and in any event, since he chose not to do so, he does not have the power to claim that his damage has intensified over the years. In any event, Mr. Sidon testified that the reason that served as the basis for his absence of the act was rooted not only in the fact that he was "part of a herd", but also in the fact that as far as he was concerned, "it is worth it for me to take the risk" (p. 32 of the transcript that was attached as Appendix P/5 to the evidence, paras. 20-21). Mr. Zidon testified that he did not even contact his attorney for the transfer of a place of hearing from Mualem or to a seller to transfer the place of the Goren hearing (p. 1204, paras. 12-15).
Even the other members of the class of plaintiffs 3-7 are not entitled to claim compensation for damage that was allegedly consolidated later, when they chose at the time to ignore the warning signs that were revealed to them and not to examine it by light means. Moving the venue of the Sidon hearing, he testified that his friends "did not want" to check in the offices of the director (p. 1315, question 8), and that he himself did not check because "I am lazy" (ibid., question 11). In other words, plaintiffs 3-7 chose with their eyes wide open not to examine the matter with the administration, even when the concern was known in full force.