My opinion is different.
- As stated, it was Mr. Nehemiah who was in constant contact with Mr. Knepfler and negotiated with him. Hence, he was bound by the provisions of the Contract Law, which stipulate that "in negotiations prior to the conclusion of a contract, a person must act in an acceptable manner and in good faith" (section 12(a) of the Contracts (General Part) Law, 5733-1973) (hereinafter: the Contracts Law). The provision also applies to him that a party who entered into an agreement due to deception is entitled to cancel the contract (section 15 of the law).
In this regard, it was held that "the failure to disclose a fact in the contractual relations that exist prior to its conclusion may constitute deception within the meaning of section 15 of the Law. Sometimes deception is created by means of a false positive statement, and sometimes the deception may be expressed in omission, i.e., by refraining from disclosing a certain figure. This is a place where one of the contractors in the contract has a duty of disclosure [...]. The perception is that silence or concealment of information is not fundamentally different from deception in the act, and that the duty of disclosure expresses 'a trend of socialization and the establishment of norms of moral behavior during the negotiations leading up to the conclusion of a contract' [...]. Indeed, the provision of section 15 expands the definition of deception, and adds: ''Deception' - including non-disclosure of facts which, according to law, custom or circumstance, the other party should have disclosed.' In other words, the provision of the section anchors the duty of disclosure of a party to a contract at the pre-contractual stage, based on three possible foundations: law, practice and circumstances" (Civil Appeal 7730/09 Cohen v. Bnei Gazit (2000) in Tax Appeal (published in the [Nevo] databases; 2011; in paragraph 12 of the opinion of the Honorable Judge, as he was then called, Fogelman (hereinafter: the Bnei Gazit case)).