I do not accept this argument. Although it has been proven that the brother Menachem assisted the plaintiff in the purchase of the apartment, including by providing a loan for the purpose of financing its purchase, the testimonies of the plaintiff and his brother, Mr. Menachem, according to which the apartment was purchased for the plaintiff only, are credible. In this context, I refer to the testimony of Brother Menachem at pp. 70-72 of the transcript, in which he described how he was asked by his deceased mother to assist his brother in finding a small apartment, and how he was assisted by a realtor in order to find such an apartment, and why he was forced to assist his brother in financing the price of the "apartment". In addition, I bring part of his testimony which sheds light on the circumstances of the sale transaction and the need to assist his brother in financing the price of the "apartment" as follows:
"Q. You also paid the consideration for the apartment
A: I didn't pay all the consideration no, I helped my brother and that was the condition that he make the deal because it is [Referring to the defendant, C.G.] She insisted on a deal within a week, she insisted on a deal, she said if there is no deal" (p. 72, paras. 29-31)
- The defendants further claimed that the plaintiff did not summon the realtor who brokered the purchase of the "apartment" to testify, and that this was acting to his detriment according to the case law.
I am not persuaded that the failure to summon the broker stemmed from the motive of concealment of facts and/or the failure of the plaintiff to disclose the truth as claimed by the defendants, since both the plaintiff and his brother were the ones who, during their testimony, on their own initiative, mentioned the fact of the existence of a realtor in the sale transaction and did not try to conceal this fact.
- The Normative Framework
Apart from general allegations of fraud and deception and misrepresentation, the plaintiff did not refer to the provisions of the law on which he bases his claim and did not define whether the claim was based on contractual or tort grounds, and the only remedy requested by him was compensation. Therefore, his arguments will be examined on both levels, contractual and tort.
- On the contractual level - The duty of disclosure on the contractual level extends from the pre-contractual stage until the conclusion of the contract.
Section 15 of the Contracts (General Part) Law, 5733-1973 (hereinafter: "the Contracts Law") provides as follows: