Here, too, if we allow this stipulation to be viable in the present case, it means that such stipulations will be able to appear in all the purchasing groups, and the organizers of the groups will certainly have a primary interest in adding them to all the relevant contractual systems, and further intensifying the power disparities between the members of the group and between them. And if these conditions go free, there is a growing risk that the organizers of the groups will make demands that violate the agreements that serve as the basis for the joint march. And the chances that these illegal demands will succeed will increase, since the lawyers of the groups - who are responsible for maintaining and enforcing the agreements - will find themselves silenced from saving, since they will have to always prioritize the interest of the group organizers, taking into account the contractual provisions that guide their path.
Against this background, contractual clauses that oblige the purchasing group's lawyers to always prioritize the interests of the group organizers over those of their members should be disqualified altogether. and this insight leads to the disqualification of the aforementioned clauses included in the agreements of the Group 102.
- Still, how should we have acted?
There was no room to settle forsending the relevant group members to review the agreements. This did not give proper weight to the serious risk at stake, a financial risk in contrast to the division of risks set out in the agreement. The treatment should have been much more assertive and direct both on the individual level and on the collective level of the group internally.
In these circumstances, taking into account the commitment of the lawyers to the group organizer, it was understandable whether they did not want to say clearly that the group organizer was wrong, and was demanding illegal demands. In these circumstances, at the very least, the applicants should have been told that they should not pay, before an inquiry was made on the matter. And then there had to be an inquiry - first with Ms. Or, and then on the overall group level. The group's organizer should have been encouraged to take action and clarify matters with the group's committee, which is a party with status and relative power to promote its affairs. She could have presented him with the need to make payments in advance, and asked for his assistance in dialogue with the few members of the group. In this regard, the lawyers could also have served as a helper.