(Emphasis added – A.S.) (Appendix 26 to the petition)
- The terms of the tender stipulated that The lot is sold as it is (AS IS) and the Bidder waives in advance any claim, demand or claim against the Authority regarding defects, defects or failure-Matches to be discovered In it. At the time of publication of the tender, the planning status of the lot was based on a number of valid plans that were attached to the tender booklet, including Plan M/3/3.
The terms of the plans and the plot sketch were also attached to the tender booklet, in a way that allows the bidders to comfortably review all the relevant planning information.
A review of the Regulations of Plan 44/3/3 that was attached to the tender obligation shows that in the "Building Provisions and Rights" table, it is explicitly stated that the area of the lot is 2,141 square meters (Surface for this should be reduced as - 217 square meters per road as specified in the tender) and that the building rights therein include 150 sqm (main area) and 75 sqm (service areas). The comments even noted that this is a "catering, cafes, a bicycle club", i.e., it is not a designation for industry, but rather In a small commercial area for a defined and clear need.
I will illustrate the scope of disclosure in the tender by copying the relevant part from Appendix "E" to the tender documents (Regulations of Plan 44/3/3):
A verbal description of the lot stating that the lot will be used for a "café/restaurant/bike club". It was also determined that any other use will be considered a significant deviation and no relief will be allowed, except for 75 square meters of an integral pergola:
An arithmetic description of the scope of the building rights in the building rights table, which indicates that the lot is granted building rights of 150 main square meters and 75 square meters of service area:
- Since the tender documents included the provisions of the Regulations of Plan 44/3/3, and in view of the fact that the bidders in the tender were explicitly referred to the plan documents, there is no basis for the claim that the Authority presented a misrepresentation or concealed material information. The opposite is true. The Petitioner's argument that the lot constitutes an unusual "mutation" that required disclosure in white Kiddush letters is rejected. The Petitioner, as a party that took part in a tender proceeding, was required to carry out the planning, legal and physical examinations of the lot itself, as determined in the terms of the tender. In these circumstances, the Authority fulfilled its duty of disclosure. Therefore, I reject the Petitioner's arguments regarding the breach of the duty of disclosure in the framework of the tender.
- Nor do I find any substance in the Petitioner's claim that the Authority misled her by not disclosing to her the existence of a legal proceeding being conducted against her in that matter.
The administrative action (Administrative Claim 65358-04-21) submitted on April 28, 2021. The Administrative Petition in Connection with the First Tender that Came in Lieu of the Administrative Claim (Administrative Petition 10345-02-23) It was submitted in February 2023, while the tender was published on August 31, 2022. In other words, the legal process did indeed begin before the publication of the second tender. However, an examination of the focus of the arguments that arose there shows that they revolved around the identification of the lot: the Petitioners believed that it was Lot No. 702 in Plan 420-0506345, but after the fact they found out that it was Lot 705 According to Plan 4D/3/3. It should be noted that the ILA Upload Locate Updated sketch regarding the tender The first As part of an "Update Ad". In these circumstances, and in view of the nature of the claims in that administrative claim and the petition, I do not believe that the ILA had an active duty of disclosure regarding the legal proceedings in connection with the first tender.