The foundations of this injustice are fulfilled. It was not proven that the facts detailed in the contract were false, or that the respondents did not intend to fulfill their obligation under the contract, or that they had a malicious intention in their hearts that was intended to deceive the appellants.
The claim regarding the respondents' negligence was also rejected. Regarding the registration of the mortgage, the court ruled that the mortgage would be registered only following a request by the appellants, and it was not proven that the appellants requested such registration. It was further held that the appellants signed the addendum to the contract, and it is reasonable to assume that they understood the content and meaning of the security that was granted to them, and therefore they cannot shirk their responsibility. Regarding the cautionary note, the trial court held that according to the correct interpretation of the contract, the warning note should not have been registered in favor of the appellants of the collateral property. In the opinion of the trial court, the entire purpose of the warning note is to warn potential buyers of a contradictory transaction. The registration of the warning note is connected to the registration of the mortgage, and as long as the registration of the mortgage was not required by the appellants, the registration of the note was not of any use.
As to the respondents' argument that a late agreement between the parties that exempted the company from the acquisition of the third apartment to the appellants was perfected, the court ruled (in paragraph 12To his judgment) that:
"It was proven that in August 1983 the aforementioned company registered amortgage in favor of Mizrahi Bank in Plot 51 - Appendix 15 to the affidavit P/4 The late Adv. A. Toister confirmed the signature of the aforementioned company on the mortgage deed on July 20, 1983 The argument of defendants 1-3 is, as stated, that this mortgage transaction was made with the plaintiffs' consent, after they received the possession of the two apartments and recognized the fact that they were not entitled to a third apartment, but at most to financial accounting (see affidavit N/12). The plaintiffs deny this claim, but the long delay in filing the lawsuit supports this claim to some extent, and may also serve as an explanation for this action of the late attorney A. Toister. This is the action of a well-known lawyer who passed away on April 10, 1988, and the claims against his actions should be treated as an argument against an estate 'in which the burden of proof on the plaintiff is particularly heavy, because in essence the claim is directed against the assets of a deceased person, who is unable to contradict the plaintiff's claim' - Civil Appeal 575/78 Judgment 33(2) page 137 The delay in taking legal steps on the part of the plaintiffs without proving special circumstances for this, Given, prima facie, that they neglected or did not see a cause justifying the filing of a lawsuit. In any event, this delay deprived defendants 4 and 5 of providing an explanation by Attorney A. Toister to the claims raised against him by the plaintiffs in connection with the registration of this mortgage. I am not ready, under these circumstances, to accept the argument of the plaintiffs' counsel on this point."