[16] It should be noted that during that period, plaintiff No. 2 sent various messages to the group, so it appears that what happened in the group did not go unnoticed (see, for example, messages of April 11, 2019 and April 16, 2019).
[17] The parties disagreed as to whether the notice of May 2, 2019, was sent only after the plaintiffs' waiver was signed, or whether it was sent before the signature and the waiver was signed only a few days later (see the defendants' reference of September 28, 2025 and the plaintiffs' response of October 16, 2025). The evidence in this matter is both face-to-face, and it is possible that it is also possible to be precise in changing the spelling in Mr. Diani's notice of May 2, 2019, quoted above. Between "a letter... came out today" versus "the committee will come out." However, in view of my conclusion that in any case the plaintiffs should be regarded as having approved the waiver retroactively, I am not required to make findings about it.
[18] Admittedly, the accounts were not approved by a supervisor on behalf of the class members, but it was the class members who chose not to appoint such a supervisor. I also did not get the impression that there was any justification for assuming that the accounts did not reflect the actual situation to a reasonable degree of approximation (see the testimony of Mr. Rachmin on pages 67-68 of the transcript of the hearing of September 10, 2025).
[19] It should be noted that it is clear that the delay caused economic damage to the members of the class, who did not receive their apartments. However, it is reasonable to assume that the contractor also suffered some damages. The extent of the damages was not proven to the required extent, but their very existence emerges, for example, from the testimony of Mr. Rachmin on page 62 of the transcript of the hearing of September 10, 2025, lines 21-37. Therefore, even if the initiative to sign the waiver of claims was taken by the defendants, and even if they were the main beneficiaries of it, it did not reflect a unilateral waiver by the class members, but rather mutual waivers.