the plaintiffs' claims;
- As a comment, I will preface by noting that the plaintiffs submitted summaries and also response summaries after the defendants' summaries were submitted. The arguments as reflected below are those presented in the two reports.
- The plaintiffs begin by claiming that the defendants' refusal to sign the Pinui-Binui agreement is unreasonable, delays the project and is intended to obtain excess and unequal consideration, contrary to the court's determinations that he is a neutral expert.
- In more detail, the plaintiffs claim that the defendants' refusal is based on their claim that they were deprived in relation to the area of the consideration apartment offered to them in the framework of the project, based on two reasons. The first reason is that the area of their original apartment is 68 square meters and not 60 square meters, and the second reason is that they are entitled to a larger area than that offered to them in view of building rights that have not been realized. However, according to the plaintiffs, these two arguments of the defendants - which were rejected by the court's expert - there is no substance in any case and is subject to rejection.
- Thus and first, with regard to the area of the apartments, the plaintiffs claim that it should be noted that the Pinui-Binui agreement does not prescribe in this case a mechanism whereby a certain additional area will be added to each existing apartment in relation to its measured area, but rather determines a nominal area of the consideration apartment and nothing more. As such, it was argued that there is no relevance or importance to the differences in the areas between the area specified in the agreement as the area of the source apartments and the area in accordance with the permit or the actual area of the apartments. This is in view of the fact that in any case the mistake in specifying the source areas of the apartments in the framework of the Pinui-Binui agreement was applied sweepingly to all the apartments. Therefore, it was argued that the defendants' argument that their case should be taken into account in the area of the apartment according to the building permit and that he should add additional space is inconsistent with the structure of the transaction and with the principle of equality that underlies it, and is nothing more than an attempt to design an individual mechanism different from that that that applies to the other apartments. It was argued that this was even clarified by the court's expert, who clarified that the inaccuracy in the basic data existed in relation to all the apartments in the complex - both the original and the expanded ones - and that the entire system was conducted on an egalitarian basis.
- As to the defendants' claim that they were deprived because they were entitled to additional area for building rights that were not realized, the plaintiffs begin by arguing that this claim is lawful to be rejected, in light of the detailed and reasoned opinion of the court's expert, who determined that the coefficient determined by the defendants' appraiser was unreasonable in the circumstances of the project in question, taking into account the totality of the data of the apartments and the rights in the existing and approved condition of the condominium. It was argued that taking into account the opinion of the court's expert, the professional framework on which the defendants sought to rely was rejected and it was clarified that they did not have an automatic or individual right to excess consideration.
Moreover, it was argued that the argument to be rejected from the principle of equality in consideration applies in our case in its entirety, since there are 13 additional apartments whose area is identical to the area of the defendants' apartment, and the consideration given to their owners is identical.