So yes. Many aspects, including those related to the heart of this lawsuit, "blossomed from Mr. Shimoni's memory", while according to him, surprisingly, the fact that Mualem did not tell him about section 15 was preserved in his memory. All this, while the plaintiffs were preoccupied at the time after learning of the demand to record a lower sum in the contract.
Interim summary with respect to the results of the evidence and testimonies in the case of plaintiffs 3-7
Plaintiff 3, Mr. Yaakov Horowitz, was persuaded to sign the contract only on the basis of what he heard from his son, some of which his son did not hear himself, but rather from others. For this reason, all of Mr. Horowitz's statements are nothing but rumored testimony that should not be given weight. In particular, Mr. Horowitz admitted that his son had concealed from him that he had agreed to record in the contract a lower sum than he had actually paid, and that if Mr. Horowitz himself had been present at the time of signing the contract, he would not have agreed to sign the contract. In these circumstances, the causal connection between the claims attributed to the defendants and Mr. Horowitz's damages, which are rooted in his son's way of walking, was severed.
Plaintiff No. 4, who moved the venue of the Ariel Cohen hearing, gave a version which I found unreliable in the aspects that are at the core of the claim. Contrary to his convoluted version, I was convinced that Cohen had read the contract and knew very well that an early lease had been signed with the manager. Moving the venue of the hearing, Cohen clearly knew that the question marks surrounding the signing of the contract were more numerous than the clarifications he received, and yet he closed his eyes even when others drew his attention to it. Nor did the demand that he sign an illegal contract dissuade him from doing so, despite the fact that he was a lawyer. Cohen even advised his friends on matters that he claimed he did not understand, and in this way he ignored Mr. Sidon's warnings that were revealed to the plaintiffs some time after the contracts were signed. In doing so, Cohen taught himself that clause 15 of the lease contract did not bother him at the time of the signing of the contract, nor even shortly thereafter. Cohen knew about clause 15 and its possible derivatives, and chose to sign the contract despite all the risks involved.