Second, this argument is inconsistent with the testimony of the appraiser on behalf of respondents 4-5, from which it emerges that the value of the contractual consideration significantly exceeded 000, $340. The appraiser assessed the value of the apartment that the appellants received from the company, which is located in the new Kiryat Motzkin, at about000, $115. According to the addendum to the contract, the appellants were supposed to receive two additional apartments in the old Kiryat Motzkin. In his cross-examination, the appraiser stated that apartment prices in the old Kiryat Motzkin are high in the 15 to 20Percentage of parallel apartment prices in New Kiryat Motzkin (page 24For the Record). This testimony implies that the value of two apartments in the old Kiryat Motzkin, in an area of 100 square meters each, which was agreed in the addendum to the contract that the company would deliver to the appellants, stands at about 000, $265 to about 000, $275. The result is that, according to the appraiser's testimony, the value of the contractual consideration is not 000, 330 dollars, but it may reach at least 000, 380- 000, $390. I said at least, since one apartment that was agreed to be delivered in the addendum to the contract was supposed to be a roof apartment, which further increases its value (and see the opinion of the appraiser N/11). From these words, therefore, it emerges that the value of the apartments that were actually delivered to the appellants - approx.000, $340, according to the appraiser's estimate, is considerably lower than the agreed contractual value. It follows that the appellants suffered significant damage, also according to the appraiser's testimony.
- When we have rejected both the position of the appellants, and the position of respondents 4-5, it comes up again and again
The question is the extent of the damage caused to the appellants. The trial court adopted a rule of thumb in this regard, which follows the principle set out at the end of clause 5 of the contract. Accordingly, the court calculated the area that was given to the appellants - about 240 square meters - and determined that there was an area of 60square meters left that the company owed to the appellants. This area constitutes 20% of the agreed contractual consideration. The court further ruled that the appellants' damages amounted to 20% of the price of an apartment as proved in the trial ($115,000). The result reached by the court was that the appellants suffered damages of $23,000.