These letters were sent on behalf of Greeny City, and are signed by Ms. Tal Hayu, the company's director of buyer relations. There is no evidence before me that the defendants were involved in writing them, or that they were in the secret of the matter before they were sent.
- After receiving the letters, some of the plaintiffs contacted Adv. Nof to clarify his position in light of this demand. In some cases, Adv. Aharonson was referred. Here's how:
- Reznik stated that he had spoken with Adv. Nof, who avoided giving him a clear answer (paragraph 29 of his affidavit).
- Malkiel stated that she contacted Adv. Nof, who referred her to Adv. Aharonson. A meeting was scheduled in his office, and the latter replied that he could not advise her in light of the conflict of interest that existed as far as he was concerned in this matter (paragraphs 24-27 of the affidavit). Adv. Aharonson denied the existence of such a meeting in his affidavit, but testified that he did not remember it in his testimony (p. 892 Q.34).
- Solomoni noted that although her late son was lying on his deathbed at the hospital at the time, Ms. Or's representatives pressured her to complete the payment. According to her, her husband called Adv. Aharonson from the hospital (p. 128, Q.34 ff.). Adv. Aharonson denied having spoken to him on the subject.
- Bentz, who did not pay at the end of the day, testified that he also spoke with Adv. Nof (pp. 322-327 of the transcript). It should be noted that the defendants claim that no such conversation took place, but that Mr. Benz spoke with a man named "Udi", who is apparently one of Ms. Or's staff.
In all disputes regarding the details of the conversations, I am not required to decide. It is sufficient for me for the purpose of the matter in the testimony of Adv. Nof that he received a request on the matter in real time, and refrained from giving an answer while referring the applicant to review the agreement. Moreover, it is sufficient for me that no action was taken on his part to prevent the payments or to delay them until further clarification (see below in paragraphs 173 onwards).
- In any event, some of the group members did not pay what was required of them after reviewing the agreements and seeing that the payment date had not arrived. Another part was paid in light of the pressures exerted on behalf of Ms. Or, who reiterated that the money was urgently needed, and in order to advance the interests of the entire group. Does the defendants' conduct entitle the plaintiffs to compensation from Adv. Nof or Adv. Aharonson?
- Before examining the matter in its essence, it is appropriate to deal with the preliminary arguments raised by the defendants in the case of N.
This claim component has not become obsolete and does not suffer from delay
- The defendants claimed that these were payments that were made in 2014 and therefore the claim for compensation in respect of them became statute of limitations.
The law of the claimis to be rejected.
- Already in the original statement of claim, which was filed back in May 2019, the cause of action for this component was mentioned. His fifteenth chapter is devoted entirely to this (in paragraphs 18.6-18.1). The matter of Ms. Michal Malkiel (plaintiff 3) was explicitly mentioned therein, and it came to illustrate the issue. and paragraph 18.5 described the cause of action, according to which Adv. Nof should have examined the applicant's claim in depth, and he should have also warned the other members of the class, to whom such a demand for payment was directed, to refrain from payment, at least until the matter was thoroughly resolved.
In addition, the original statement of claim also included details of the financial components for this reason. Thus, in Ms. Malkiel's original statement of claim (Appendix 13; at pp. 125-126 to the appendices to the claim), it was noted that the amount of her claim for the purchase consideration was 437,500 (nominal). On the other hand, in Appendix 16 to the amended statement of claim, it was stated that the amount of her claim is ILS 396,000, plus ILS 41,500 for the payment in 2014. The combination of the two sums brings us to the sum already claimed in the original claim; this is the case with Mr. Władysław Kainowski (plaintiff 9), and Mr. Yitzhak Kamar (defendant 17); with Rinat and David Cohen (plaintiffs 30-31) and with David and Michal Reznik (plaintiffs 47-48); with Elena and Smiko Solomoni (plaintiffs 50-51) and with Ofir and Sara Paz (plaintiffs 45-46).