In their summaries, the plaintiffs presented this claim in a more vague manner, and did not specify the period of time during which they should have read the documents, but made do with the general statement that they would not have been able to do so. In any event, the evidence before me does not support the said claim - whether in the firm version in the statement of claim or in the softened version in the summaries.
- As a starting point, I will reiterate that most of the substantive documents in the treaty system were quite short. A thorough reading of these forms should not take a long time, and it would have given a good picture of the project, the nature of the transaction, and the risks associated with it. These also arise from the first page of the sharing agreement as stated above (see paragraph 87).
- What is the evidentiary basis for the plaintiffs' claim that they did not have time to review the documents? They try to base this argument in their summaries (at paragraph 471) on the example of Mr. Ofir Brochowitz (plaintiff 39). According to them, there was only one meeting with him, during which he signed the agreements. He testified that in the middle of the meeting, he consulted with his lawyer, Adv. Shmela, who advised him not to sign the documents, but Adv. Aharonson managed to convince him to sign anyway, since he is an excellent salesman.
However, in his affidavit there is no mention of the claim that he had to read dozens of pages in half an hour. He testified that the meeting lasted three hours, and did not specify exactly when he received the sharing agreement, which is only relatively long. In addition, the description in his affidavit indicated that he could have taken the documents with him and come and sign another time, but the reason he signed the website was because he had been told that the apartments might be finished, and that Adv. Aharonson reassured him (see ibid., paragraphs 8 and 11).
He also testified that he consulted with his lawyer, who advised him not to enter into the deal because it does not include enough guarantees and is dangerous. And now he and his wife decided to buy two units. They did so in the face of verbal promises. However, in this testimony, these plaintiffs are also trying to raise claims that contradict the clear statements in the agreements they signed.