The plaintiffs' excuse that the agreements were not read, or that they were not read carefully, and that they were not understood, should not be accepted. These are factually baseless claims, and they do not give them the right to cancel the transaction, accept their investment or attribute liability to the defendants. The agreements also explicitly stipulated that there is no validity to any oral representation or promise made before they are signed, and that they may only be changed in writing and with the signatures of the parties - something that was not done in our case.
Credibility should not be attributed to the plaintiffs' claims. Most of their claims raised today were not raised in real time, but only for the first time in a warning letter sent years after the events. On the other hand, the defendants' testimony was reliable and orderly, and it should be adopted.
- The defendants did not make any verbal promise that a building permit would be received within 8 months, which would allow work to begin on the site. Such an undertaking is not anchored in agreements, and as noted, their wording is decisive. The defendants informed the plaintiffs about the expropriation that was carried out in the lot before they signed, and this was even stated in the appendix attached to the sale agreement.
- It was also made clear to the plaintiffs, prior to the signing of the agreements, that they did not include a trust account. The plaintiffs paid Green-City directly by check or bank transfer to its account. The plaintiffs even admitted in their summaries that in any case they did not suffer direct damage due to the lack of a trust mechanism, since the transaction for the purchase of the land by Ms. Or was completed, and the consideration was paid in full to Kempel, the original owner.
The plaintiffs' claim of negligence in the form of failure to deposit the deposit in trust in accordance with the letter of undertaking should also be rejected. This is when the date for the said deposit has not arrived.
- According to the defendants, the plaintiffs were told, and this was stated in the agreements, that the group organizer intends to promote a consolidated project of Lot 102 together with Lot 104. This was reflected in the plans submitted by Ms. Or to the planning authorities, and there was indeed cooperation between the groups. Ultimately, lots 102 and 104 were sold jointly to a third party as part of the liquidation proceedings, since this would make it more economically and planning profitable. The new buyer of the two lots has submitted plans to build a multi-storey building, mixed-use on both lots. Hence, there was no fault in the fact that Ms. Or tried to promote such a move at the time.
- The claims of those plaintiffs, who acceded to Ms. Or's demand and transferred funds at the expense of the land completion component, should be rejected, even though the date to do so had not arrived. Some of the said witnesses turned out to be unreliable, and some relied on hearsay.
In any case, the plaintiffs have already received (as of December 2023) a refund of about 52%-82% of the liquidation fund also for the land completion component, so that they cannot repay twice for this part. The fact that they are demanding a full refund for this indicates a lack of procedural bad faith.