The defendants' arguments in a very brief way
- At the beginning of their summaries, the defendants warn against many extensions of the front that the plaintiffs' claims are flawed. These are claims that were not raised in the original or amended statement of claim, and there is no reason to allow them to be clarified. Thus, an attempt was made to raise them in affidavits, during cross-examinations, and in summaries. The defendants objected to these extensions for this length, and they are doing so now. The plaintiffs also tried to sneak new evidence into their summaries, and this should not be done either.
- According to the defendants, some of the components of the claim should be dismissed out of hand due to the statute of limitations and delay. This refers to claims regarding the completion of the payment in respect of the land component; the Six Late Buyers; the collective expenses; and negligence in handling the purchase tax.
The lawsuit of Ms. Sinai Riklis Tom and Ms. Sinai Chodorov Lee (Plaintiffs 43-44) should also be dismissed due to lack of cause and adversity. They admitted that they sold the rights in their housing units to their cousin, in exchange for the investment they invested, and concealed this figure during the litigation. This action should be viewed with great severity.
- On the merits, the current lawsuit is trying to shift the responsibility for the business risks in the project to the defendants - lawyers who accompanied the group. This should not be done. Lawyers should not be seen as insurers of purchasing groups, and as a tool for reducing the risks associated with them. Most of the plaintiffs entered the transaction as investors, taking the risk as befits any transaction in the real estate market; And instead of dealing with the realization of the risk, they chose to direct their claims against the defendants. The plaintiffs know that the defendants, as lawyers who accompany real estate transactions, are anxious for their good name, and therefore they filed the lawsuit in order to extort money from them, and this attempt will not succeed.
- The wording of the agreements signed by the plaintiffs is clear and unequivocal, and it is stated in them that the defendants do not represent the defendants who are considering joining the purchasing group in the negotiations for the purpose of concludingthe agreement. It was made clear that the lawyers would represent the group when it was formed.
All the agreements contain exemption and waiver clauses, which the plaintiffs signed with clear knowledge, and in the framework of which they waived any claim against the defendants. In addition, the plaintiffs consciously stated that they had examined the property with all its characteristics and found it suitable to their full satisfaction.