Did the plaintiffs meet this demand?
On the face of it, there is a difficulty from M's point of view. Thus, Mr. Geva admitted in his affidavit (at paragraph 29) that when he took office on the group committee, at the first meeting held on May 29, 2014, he understood that Ms. Or had sold housing units beyond the valid zoning plan, and that the municipality was refusing to approve the new zoning plan to the extent that it requested. Adv. Nof stated at the same meeting that the request to amend the zoning plan had not yet been filed, and that most of the class members were present at that meeting (Appendix 38 to the defendants' affidavits, page 522, chapter 2 of the minutes of the first meeting, and the list of those present at the meeting in the appendix to the minutes, on page 525). It was therefore clear that it would not be possible to build all the 57 housing units that were marketed on the same lot.
This became explicit at the second meeting of the group, on November 10, 2014, where it was stated that it would not be possible to build 57 housing units in Plot 102 alone, without the approval of the authorities to increase the zoning plan (see: Appendix 14 to Mr. Shinar's affidavit, 163, paras. 10-12). At the same meeting, Mr. Geva addressed the claim of the group members that Ms. Or had sold many units. He noted that it sold housing units in a 10-story building with 6 apartments per floor, when in practice only 20-25 apartments can be built. He added, "The girl sold dreams. Yes. It must be said, she sold dreams in the color of your shirt, and of your glasses, she had beautiful dreams" (p. 164 of the appendices to the affidavit, s.2). But immediately afterwards, he clarified that in fact the members of the group had purchased land, with building rights that would be formulated in the future, and he hoped that there would be a building permit within a few months (ibid., Q.19 onwards).
Months passed, the building permit was not received, and it does not appear that it will be received soon, and here is none of the plaintiffs at that time to cancel the transaction, but only after another period of time has passed. The fact that they did not do so strengthens the claim that they nevertheless sought to exhaust the chance of becoming owners of housing units in the center of Ramat Gan at a very attractive price.
- In the circumstances of the case, while I have not determined that certain disclosure obligations were breached, I am not required to decide the question of whether the plaintiffs missed the possibility of exercising the power of cancellation, which was available to them at too late a date.
Interim Summary
- So far, I have examined the plaintiffs' arguments regarding the process of joining the group. I found that the defendants did not serve as their firefighters, and I did not find that they breached certain disclosure duties. I also determined that the contractual system well reflected the dangers that accompanied the project at hand, and that it was possible to understand the essence of the transaction and the great uncertainty that accompanied its realization. Therefore, the plaintiffs have not been able to establish the responsibility they attribute to Adv. Nof and Adv. Aharonson.
And now, the time has come to move on to examining the plaintiffs' next group of claims, relating to the stage at which Group 102 was already operating, and the defendants provided it with legal services.