While the contractual system reflected the possibility that apartments would be oversold, there is no basis for the plaintiffs' claim that Adv. Nof and Adv. Aharonson lent their hands to oversell housing units.
Contrary to the plaintiffs' claims, the emission mechanism does not reflect "criminal negligence" or "trickery" (paragraph 96 of the reply summaries). It reflects a commercial move of selling rights when the scope of the project is still unclear. The group's organizers tried to increase the number of housing units, and worked with the planning institutions to do so. Under these circumstances, apartments were sold, with the risk that the project would not be able to affordeverything. And if the risk materializes, there will be room to reduce the group while compensating those who remain outside it. And under the circumstances of the case, an even greater risk was realized, as the entire project ran aground.
- The lawyers are not responsible for the realization of this risk.
The claim for compensation for the addition of the 6 late purchasers in 2014
- In 2014, Ms. Or sold additional conceptual units to 6 buyers after the group closed. The plaintiffs claimed in their amended statement of claim (in paragraph 9.1(2)) that the defendants were negligent in not taking care to record in the land registers a note about refraining from making additional transactions, in a manner that would have prevented the said sale. Moreover, it was claimed that in respect of this matter, the group included 6 additional members, who also shared the payments that resulted from the receivership proceedings. Therefore, the plaintiffs were harmed by the fact that their share of the payments received was smaller.
- I am unable to accept this component of the claim.
As a starting point, it should be noted thatMs. Or's action was done without the defendants' knowledge. They note that the sale was made in contravention of clause 14.3 of the Partnership Agreement, which sets out the terms under which rights may be transferred from an existing group member to a third party. Such a transfer requires the approval of the attorneys representing the group, and such approval was not requested and in any case was not given. They further claim that a review of the various documents, relating to those additional purchasers, shows that it was clear to them that joining the group was contingent upon taking a proceeding in accordance with clause 14.3 of the agreement.