This is not an appendix that is hidden in the vessels. The sale agreement includes two appendices, and the agreement itself includes about four pages. Even if I accept the plaintiffs' argument that the agreement for the purchase of the land from Campbell explicitly relates to the matter of the expropriation, and that this was not presented to them, this still does not change the fact that the issue appears in the sale agreement in which all the plaintiffs entered into.
Against this background, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs were misled in this matter or that the expropriation was concealed from them. Anyone who read the agreements could have known that part of the plot was expropriated for public purposes. Later on, it was clear that in light of the limited data of Lot 102, much would depend on the plan relating to the sharing of rights with Lot 104.
It is therefore not surprising that this issue did not really bother the plaintiffs in real time, since in the warning letter prior to the filing of the claim (Appendix 7 to the amended statement of claim) nothing was claimed regarding the concealment of the expropriation.
The claim of breach of an oral promise by the defendants before the signing of the agreements that a building permit would be granted within 8 months
- According to the plaintiffs in their lawsuit (in paragraph 13.4 of the amended statement of claim), the defendants violated their oral promise, which was given before the signing of the agreements, according to which a building permit would be granted within 8 months.
00This argument is to be rejected.
- 0First, it was neglected in this format by the plaintiffs in their summaries, and therefore, according to the case law, it should not be required (see Other Municipality Applications 447/92 Roth v. Intercontinental Credit Corporation, IsrSC 49(2) 102, 107-108 (1995)).
In the plaintiffs' summaries a more softened version appeared (at paragraph 250), according to which Adv. Aharonson "used to note" to them that the expected date for receiving a building permit was "within a year, a year and a half", and they referred to testimonyin which they claimed that he admitted to this (p. 843, S. 16-22). However, a review of the testimony of Adv. Aharonson (at p. 843, Q. 16-22) indicates that he did not promise this, but rather noted that "in the opinion of the professional authorities" the permit would be received within the said period of time. This is not a promise, but only an estimate. It should be remembered and reminded that there is always a risk that the planning process will be lengthened, and not by a little.