The plaintiffs executed the contractual engagement through a local broker from Ashkelon, Mr. Dahari. Moving the venue of the Goren hearing instructed Mr. Dahari to execute these transactions, subject to the purchasers being represented by an attorney on their behalf who will explain to them the nature of the transaction; that there will be a full disclosure by Mr. Dahari about the nature of the transaction; That it will be emphasized in the contract that this is agricultural land leased by the Administrator, and that the purchaser will be referred to a drafting from the Land Registry Office that will be attached to the contract and will reflect the nature of the rights being sold.
When he demanded that Goren be relocated, so it was. Mr. Dahari conducted the entire course of the engagement with the plaintiffs 3-7, while they were represented by a concealed hearing place. Goren did not see the plaintiffs 3-7 prior to the signing of the contracts, and there was no prior discussion between them. Mr. Dahari and the transfer of the venue of the Mualem hearing stood alone in contact with the plaintiffs 3-7.
As for plaintiffs 1-2, who there is no dispute that they will not be represented by the transfer of the place of the Mualem meeting, defendants 1 and 4 claimed that the transfer of the venue of the hearing Goren met them after they approached him on their own initiative, following an early and extensive discussion with Mr. Dahari. Goren offered them to hire the services of a lawyer on their behalf, but they urged him to forgo this because, according to them, they had examined the transactions as required. Goren made do with this, stating in the contracts that he does not represent them and that they have the power to hire legal representation services. Goren further clarified to plaintiffs 1-2 that any purchase of agricultural land carries risks and that they must be aware of this, including with respect to possible losses, including the possibility that the administrator will seek to redeem the land according to his right under any law. Plaintiffs 1-2 conducted a comprehensive investigation and demand regarding the details of the sale, prior to the signing of the contracts on August 23, 2011. In any event, later, when Mr. Attias claimed that Mr. Dahari was not acting properly and was even trying to charge increased brokerage fees, without being aware of this, Goren contacted Mr. Dahari, reprimanded him and warned him not to sell a property at a price higher than that which would be recorded in the contract.