In case here, The construction work was carried out over time, and decisions were required to be made in various matters, with the committee being the one who conducted itself consistently vis-à-vis the contractor, while the group members did not object to it in any way, in a manner that may establish authorization in conduct in the relationship with the defendants (In this regard, see, for example, the committee's letters, Appendices 7-8 to the affidavit of Boaz Barzili on behalf of the lenders). In the framework of this relationship, the partnership agreement and its provisions do not apply. Even if the defendants were aware of the instructions The agreement, so I do not believe that they should have required the board to present the written consent of the class members, and they They were entitled to assume that if the board had not been conducted with the consent of the members of the group, and in accordance with the agreement between them, any of the members would have approached them at some point.
- There are, therefore, good reasons for concluding that the board was authorized to represent the class members before the defendants. Admittedly, it was possible to discuss the limits of this authorization, and to clarify whether it also includes authorization for such a significant action as signing a waiver of claims, but in this case there is no need to decide the matter. This is because there are reasons that justify viewing the plaintiffs as having specifically approved the signing of the waiver of claims, even if only retroactively (see section 6(a) of the Courier Law).
- An examination of the WhatsApp correspondence between the members of the group shows that the delay in receiving the occupancy certificate occupied the members for several months. Thus, on December 24, 2018, committee member Mr. Noam Diani reported that the delay in receiving the approval stemmed from the municipality's demands to deposit an additional sum as a guarantee for the purpose of carrying out the environmental development works required by the plan, and plaintiff 3 himself also referred to this situation and explained the conduct of the committee members regarding him (see his announcements of January 9, 2019). On January 23, 2019, Mr. Diani reported that the municipality had changed its position and demanded that the environmental development work be carried out before a permit for occupancy was granted, and on April 17, 2019, he reported that the municipality agreed to make do with the guarantee again, but demanded that it be increased from a total of NIS 800,000, that have already been given, For a total of NIS 1,250,000. It was noted that in order to provide the additional guarantee amount, each class member must pay the sum of NIS 10,000, and that "Gilad Barzili" agreed to provide the balance to each group member who would not provide the sum himself in exchange for interest. On May 2, 2019, Mr. Diani noted that in practice only a small number of class members had paid the amount, and therefore the contractor was required to complete the sum of NIS 400,000, which is more than the amount planned. It was noted that "in light of the developments, the developer conditions the transfer of the money... In a letter from the board with a notice that the board intends to terminate the engagement with the developer without mutual claims. A letter of this wording was issued today on behalf of the committee to the developer... After receiving the letter, the money will be immediately transferred to the municipality's guarantee account. Upon the transfer of the money, the committee will go to the municipality to receive the final signature on Form 4. for your information" (notice dated May 2, 2019).
True, there were a few members of the group who asked for explanations on the matter, but None of them claimed that the board was not authorized to sign such a waiver, and even the plaintiffs themselves did not say anything on this matter. Not only that, However, the plaintiffs did not pay the amount that each group member had to pay in order to change the situation that led to the contractor's demand to sign the waiver of claims; They were silent even when Mr. Diani informed a few days later that the contractor had indeed transferred the total amount (Notice dated May 13, 2019); They did not express any reservations, even when a few more days later Mr. Diani informed us that the approval of the occupancy had indeed been granted (Notice dated May 19, 2019). If This is not enough, as following the confirmation of occupancy, many members of the group, including plaintiffs 2-3, reported that they had contracted with the electric company (plaintiffs' notices 2-3 of May 23, 2019).[16]