Plaintiff No. 2 stated that he wished to take out a loan while mortgaging his apartment, in order to pay the defendants (paragraph 9 of the affidavit);
and plaintiff 3 stated that he wished to sell his apartment (together with his wife, plaintiff 4) and for this purpose he wanted to receive a "letter of intent" (paragraph 6 of the affidavit and page 26 of the transcript of the hearing of September 10, 2025, and see also below).
- The aforesaid is sufficient to prove with a degree of "reasonable certainty" that had it not been for the defendants' conduct, the plaintiffs would have repaid the part of the debts attributed to them in accordance with the invoice, whether by selling their apartments or by taking out a loan while mortgaging the apartments, without detracting from their claims regarding the amount of the debts on their merits. In the absence of concrete evidence as to the date on which each plaintiff would have repaid the debts attributed to him, it can be assumed that this date was close to after the issuance of the card, and in calculating the time required to organize and by way of estimation, it will be assumed that it was 30 days later (and see Appendices 16-17 to the affidavit of Plaintiff 1, from which he contacted the defendants even earlier, and already in February 2020).
- On the other hand, I do not believe that it has been sufficiently proven that the plaintiffs would have also repaid the debt that was required of them in respect of their liability jointly and severally in the total balance of the debt. In this regard, I will refer to the words of plaintiff 1, who wrote in his conduct vis-à-vis the defendants, "I am not interested in the group and I am not connected to them. There is already registration in the Land Registry", and "[I]m not part of [the] group" (Appendix 16 to Plaintiff 1's affidavit). I will also refer to the words of plaintiff 3, who also revolted against this liability in his testimony in the proceedings here (see pages 27-28 of the transcript of the hearing of September 10, 2025).
- Therefore, the damage caused to the plaintiffs as a result of the defendants' conduct is their continued charge of interest for the amounts of debt attributed to them in the invoice, and which It was assumed that They would have rioted if it weren't for that conduct. The plaintiffs must be compensated for this damage, or in the event that it is prevented in advance by determining that they will not be charged interest for these amounts.
- The conclusion is that the plaintiffs should be charged interest in accordance with the agreements and the Fair Credit Law, as stated above, for the full amounts of the total debt by virtue of the two agreements, but with two conditions: the charge of interest for any amount repaid by other members of the class on the date of its repayment must of course be stopped; and the charge of interest for the amounts attributed to the plaintiffs in the invoice must be terminated from July 24, 2020 onwards. Calculation in this manner will place the plaintiffs in the presumed situation they would have been in if the defendants had acted in accordance with the agreements, and the plaintiffs would have repaid the sums attributed to them and would not have paid interest on them, like most of the class members (while keeping their claims regarding the amount of the debts on the substantive level).
- It should be noted that, in principle, the attempt to place the plaintiffs in the situation they would have been in had the defendants acted in accordance with the agreements, would have justified deducting from the damage caused to them the economic value of the benefits that accrued to them (see Civil Appeal 4232/13 Anglo-Saxon Property Agency in Tax Appeal v. Blum, para. 32 (January 29, 2015)). Thus, for example, when the plaintiffs were unable to sell their apartments in order to repay the debt to the defendants, they continued to hold them for an additional period; And since they were not able to take out loans for repayment, they were not required to bear the costs of such loans. However, the defendants did not bring evidence in the aforementioned matters and did not raise it in an orderly and detailed argument, and therefore, I do not believe that they can be taken into account (for the fact that the burden in the matter is on the defendants, see Daniel Friedman and Nili Cohen Contracts, 4, 714-719 (2011); and compare: Civil Appeal 5655/91 State of Israel v. Levy, para. 16 (February 11, 1997)).
- Summary and Legal Expenses
- It therefore emerges from the aggregate that the plaintiffs are jointly and severally liable for the entire balance of the loan amounts by virtue of the first agreement and the second agreement.
- The plaintiffs are not entitled to deduct any sums in respect of an alleged debt of the contractor due to delay in delivery, but they are entitled to deduct from the amounts of the debt that includes the interest according to the law that applies to amounts that the class members were entitled to withhold, in relation to the period from the date of the transfer of each and every sum until the receipt of the occupancy certificate (paragraph 91 above).
- With regard to calculating the amounts of debt in respect of the loans in their various parts, the interest rates and their commencement dates are in accordance with what is stated in the expert opinion, except for the sum of NIS 18,000, for which the interest must be calculated in accordance with the interest rate on the first part of the loan by virtue of the second agreement and not as calculated (paragraph 68 above).
- The interest rates for the loans in their various parts must be added to the full amounts of the total debt by virtue of the two agreements, while stopping charging interest for any amount repaid by other group members on the date of its repayment. In addition, the interest rates for the amounts attributed to the plaintiffs in the invoice must be stopped from July 24, 2020 onwards.
- It also emerges from the aforesaid that the realization of the liens can only be done in relation to the balance of the debt by virtue of the second agreement.
- In terms of legal expenses, "the value of the relief awarded and the ratio between it and the amount claimed, the manner in which the parties conducted the hearing, the complexity of the proceeding, the investment of resources in its preparation and management, and the amount of expenses requested" (Regulation 153(c) of the Civil Procedure Regulations, 5779-2018). It is also possible to impose expenses due to an unnecessary extension of the proceeding (Regulation 156).
- In the case here, a significant part of the plaintiffs' arguments were not accepted: so, inter alia, the claim regarding the fact that their liability was separate; Thus, the claim regarding the amount of the sums that were made available as loans (which was one of the main claims underlying the claim at its source); and so the claim regarding the contractor's debt to them.
However, the defendants' position was also not fully accepted: so, inter alia, the argument regarding the separation between the defendants and themselves; Thus, the claim regarding the total amounts of the debt, including for a violation of the provisions of the Fair Credit Law; This is the argument regarding the charge of interest for the period from July 24, 2020 until today. for the entire balance, which, according to the opinion, is of considerable financial significance. I will add that although the defendants' position was ultimately accepted with respect to the sums that were provided as a loan by virtue of the second agreement, their conduct in advance did not make it easier to try to ascertain the scope of the amounts, and even the documents they presented during the proceeding itself gave rise to ambiguities (see paragraph 9 of the decision of July 3, 2024).