From the testimony of Mr. David, it emerged that in the framework of the second meeting, it was agreed that the committee would be able to act on behalf of the members of the group, while updating them in the WhatsApp group (see his testimony on page 81 of the transcript of the hearing of September 10, 2025, line 32 to page 82, line 6, and on page 87, lines 32-36).
In any event, the evidence shows that throughout the years of the establishment of the project, substantive decisions were required to be made on an ongoing basis, and these were actually made by the group committee, and at least some of them were presented in the framework of a WhatsApp group of the group members (the WhatsApp group correspondence was submitted on September 21, 2025; for this conduct, see, inter alia, the testimony of Mr. Rachmin on page 63 of the transcript of the hearing of September 10, 2025, lines 30-34, and on page 64, lines 16-24, and the testimony of Mr. David there, on pages 72, 81-83). It does not appear that any of the members of the group had reservations in "real time" about the decision-making by the committee, in particular while updating the members via the WhatsApp group, to the extent that justifies considering him as having not completed theThis situation. The fact that in the course of the correspondence from time to time any of the members raised certain grievances against the committee, or asked to convene a general meeting physically (see, for example, the excerpts in the plaintiffs' reference of October 16, 2025), does not indicate otherwise.
- In light of Mr. David's testimony regarding the second meeting, it is possible that the members of the class can be seen as having authorized the board to commit on their behalf by an explicit resolution of the general meeting, as required by clause 9.2.2 of the partnership agreement (even if the decision itself was not documented in writing).
- Even if this is not the case, in light of the ongoing conduct in the WhatsApp group, it is possible that the members of the group can be seen as someone that instead of a gathering A physical meeting and the adoption of an authoritative decision in the framework of it, Settle for an update that will be sent in the WhatsApp group, which will be considered as a virtual meeting as aforesaid.
- Alternatively, it may be seen in the members of the group as those who by their conduct gave the committee permission to make various decisions on their behalf, despite what is stated in the sharing agreement (However, in this regard, consideration should be given to clause 23 of the sharing agreement, which states that changes to the agreement will be valid if they are made in writing and signed by all members of the group. For the question of the possible implications of such a clause on changes made in a different way, see: Civil Appeal (Tel Aviv District) 52192-03-23 Garba v. Ein Shemer Rubber in Tax Appeal (16.1.2024); Civil Case (Jerusalem District) 49879-01-12 Nehemiah v. Gorsed, paragraphs 31-34 (February 5, 2014); Civil Appeal (Hai District) 35450-03-20 Omer Almukhtar in a Tax Appeal vs. Ofer Development and Investments in a Tax Appeal (June 22, 2020), in whose case an application for leave to appeal was rejected by the Civil Appeals Authority 5054/20; Civil Case (Central District) 54473-12-17 Ben Lulu v. Edri, paragraph 53 (July 13, 2021), an appeal against which was rejected on the recommendation of the Supreme Court Other Municipality Applications 7091/21; Gabriela Shalev and Effi Zemach, Contract Law, 271 and onwards (4th ed., 2019)).
- Alternatively, It is possible that the members of the class should be regarded as having granted the committee permission to pledge on their behalf to the defendants, through their conduct towards the defendants.
Section 3(a) of the Mission Law, 5725-1965 (hereinafter: The Law of Mission), states that permission can be granted not only within the framework of the relationship between the sender and the agent, and in the case here between the members of the class and the committee, but also within the framework of the relationship between the sender and a third party. This authorization, known as "external authorization," is created "independently of the question of whether an internal authorization has been formed in the relationship between the sender and the sender."Civil Appeal Authority 5765/02 EL AL Israel Airlines in Tax Appeal v. Zilberschlagparagraphs 20-22 (August 26, 2009)). Like the internal permission, the external permission can also be given by way of behavior (Section 3(a) ibid.).