The veil created by the transfer of the Goren hearing venue between him and the plaintiffs 3-7, including by means of the transfer of the hearing venue from Mualem, who served as their counsel, did not separate him from the plaintiffs 1-2, since, in their case, Goren did not adhere to his initial plan and spoke with them directly, and even served as their representative for the purpose of executing the transactions.
Indeed. I found full confidence to be given full confidence in the version of Goren's transfer of the venue of the Goren hearing, according to which he gave the attorney for plaintiffs 3-7, the transfer of the place of hearing, the lease contracts that were signed with the manager and that the two had discussed clause 15. For this reason, it was rejected by plaintiffs 7-3 that the transfer of the Goren hearing venue concealed from them the existence of the lease contracts signed with the manager, including clause 15 of the contracts. From the moment the venue of the hearing was moved, Mualem knew about the contracts and clause 15, his knowledge should be attributed to the knowledge of these plaintiffs. The transfer of the Goren hearing venue was not obligated to inform any of the plaintiffs 3-7 about section 15, when their counsel was aware of this and the transfer of the Goren hearing venue could have been based on the assumption that he would update them on the matter. With regard to plaintiffs 1-2 who were not represented by the transfer of a place of hearing, I found it to be determined that they were aware that a lease contract had been signed with the manager, but were not aware of the provision of clause 15 of the lease contract.
Defendant No. 2, Transfer of a Hearing Venue
There is no dispute that Mualem did not represent plaintiffs 1-2, but only plaintiffs 3-7. The main argument of the plaintiffs that will be presented by him is that he did not inform them about clause 15 of the lease contract with the manager. In fact, their argument is that the relocation of the venue of the hearing of Goren did not inform the transfer of the place of hearing of Mualem regarding clause 15, and nevertheless the transfer of the place of hearing should have been consulted, as their counsel, to trace the content of the lease contracts signed between defendant 4 and the manager, and to make them aware of the meaning of clause 15.