Towards the Respondents 4 and 5 The appellants claimed that they were indebted in torts due to negligent drafting of the contract that caused them not to receive the third apartment, and even prevented them from claiming their damages from the company.
The appellants claimed that these acts gave them torts of fraud under section 56Ordinance The Torts, negligence under sections 35 and 36to the Ordinance, and to the Respondents 4 and 5 also breach of statutory duty, which is set out in section 54To the Bar Association Law, according to section 63The Ordinance The torts. In addition, the appellants' claim was also based on a cause of action for breach of the duty of good faith under sections 12th and 39thof the Contracts Law (General Part), 5733 -.1973
On the basis of these alleged grounds, the appellants demanded compensation, which included the estimated value of the aforesaid apartment, in the area of the 100 square meters, as of the date of filing the claim. They also claimed loss of rent and compensation for mental anguish.
- The respondents did not deny the basic facts raised by the appellants, but added Their own factual version. As stated, the appellants received two apartments from the company. The first is an apartment built on a plot of land 145 square meters, which is valued, according to the opinion of an appraiser on behalf of respondents 4and 5, approx.000, $225 and the apartment The second one that was transferred to the appellants is a daughter 4 rooms, area 96A square meter and its value, according to an opinion, approx.000, $115.
Against this background, respondent 3, who was later joined by respondents 4 and 5, argued that
Contrary to the agreement, the appellants were given two apartments whose area exceeded the area of two apartments that the company undertook to provide to the appellants, and that their value was approximately the same as the value of the apartments that it undertook to provide to the appellants. On this basis, respondent 3 claimed that it had been agreed between the parties that a third apartment would not be given to the appellants, and that the parties would make a financial calculation between them. Respondent 3 further argued that in view of this agreement, the appellant agreed that the collateral asset would be pledged in favor of Mizrahi Bank.
- The District Court dismissed the claim.
As to the tort of fraud, the court ruled that the appellants had not been able to prove the