The defendant further details that on January 18, 2018, the day after the personal meeting, the text of the second addendum to the agreement was sent and on the same day it was signed by many of the owners of the old apartments, including the plaintiff, as part of a gathering at the building site. The defendant emphasizes that contrary to the plaintiff's claim that the signature was made only at the end of 2018 or the beginning of 2019 after the permit was granted, the original signing dates clearly show the date January 18, 2018 (in the signature document that was attached on page 130 of the plaintiff's own affidavit). As part of this addition, the apartment owners undertook to allow any registration or other arrangement that would allow the plaintiff to use the full garden, in the event that the permit would not allow for official linkage.
The defendant further claims that on April 30, 2018, the building permit was granted. As for this permit, it was claimed that in the table of areas on the drawing, there was a clerical error by the architect, which was also approved by the municipality, according to which the area of the garden is 135 square meters. However, the defendant argues that there is no reason to attribute any importance to this error, and that in the context of the issue, preference should be given to the substantive and visual part of the drawing, and in particular the development plans, from which it emerges that the garden on the façade facing French People's Street was clearly marked as common property ("gardening" or "lawn") and not as a "private yard", in accordance with the municipality's policy on which the plaintiff was informed. In the context of this marking, the defendant further argues that there is no logic in marking a private garden as a "lawn" and that this marking unequivocally testifies that this is an area designated for development work and is part of the common areas and not a private area that the owner does as he wishes. The defendant further argues that this interpretation is also supported by Mr. Arad's certificate of public servant, which indicates that private yards in the front are not marked with the front spaces, but only at the rear, as well as by the examination of the expert on behalf of the plaintiff, who avoided giving meaning to the differences in the markings and admitted that "it can be interpreted that way". In this context, the defendant also refers to the fact that the plaintiff's affidavit was attached as appendices 9-10 sections of poor quality with misleading markings that were added retroactively in order to obscure the facts and to present a representation that the garden is marked as private, while in the original full-color sketch - which was presented to the court - it is not possible to make a mistake. In the context of this sketch, the defendant further argues that the plaintiff's claim that she relied, inter alia, on a representation presented to her in the table of areas in the permit application - became an empty claim, when in her testimony she admitted that she did not review the building permit plan at all. In these circumstances, it was argued that in any case the plaintiff could not claim that she relied on the registration of the areas in the table of the plan for the permit.