The plaintiffs claim that the waiver of claims, signed by the members of the group committee and the contractor in relation to the mutual claims due to the delay in completing the project (para. 12 above), was signed without the board being authorized to do so by the members of the group, and therefore it does not bind them.
- Another argument raised by the plaintiffs relates to the valuation of the sums from the end of the venture until now. The plaintiffs claim that they should not be credited with refraining from paying sums on account of the debt, and that they should not be charged interest for the years that have passed, since they tried to obtain details from the defendants regarding the balance of their debts so that they could repay them by selling their apartments or taking a loan that would be secured by a lien, but the defendants acted arbitrarily towards them, giving them absurd sums in order to remove the lien that had been registered in their favor, and thus thwarted the possibility of repaying the debts earlier. Additional concrete claims were also raised.
- The defendants, for their part, claim that the plaintiffs' liability by virtue of the first and second agreements is jointly and severally with the class members, and therefore each of them must bear the total balance of the debt.
Regarding the amount of the debt, it was argued that by virtue of clause 6.6 of the second agreement, what is stated in the invoice binds the plaintiffs and they cannot dispute it. It was further claimed that In any event, the fact that the board members adopted the defendants' position regarding the manner of calculating the debt shows that the total debt determined in the card is in accordance with the agreements between the parties. The defendants also explained how their position regarding the interest on the various amounts borrowed, on the basis of which the total amount of the debt in the invoice is calculated, increases with the provisions of the first agreement and the second agreement.
- The defendants deny the plaintiffs' ability to offset the contractor's alleged debt to them from their debt to the lenders, since they claim that these are different legal entities.
The defendants further claim that the plaintiffs are prevented from raising claims regarding the delay in delivery, in view of the waiver of claims that binds them as well.