"Witness Mr. West: I would have stated, I don't know if, I can say so, I would have indicated what is the area in the permit, what is the area in the registration, what is the area under measurement, I would have expressed my opinion, I don't know if it would have changed the agreement. The agreement is differential to this matter, it can be the same as it was written, it can be higher, it can be lower, but it's a simple factual fact that it needs."
Moreover, the expert on behalf of the court further testified that this difference significantly affected the large apartments. Thus, on page 17, lines 6-8, the expert testified that:
"Witness Mr. West: I explicitly stated that the ones who received more were the ones with the apartments that were not expanded, because the mistake with the expanded apartments was even greater, if they were supposed to get 12 meters they would have received two meters in the end... ."
My determination, and accordingly that there is no mistake in the Pinui-Binui agreement in order to entitle the defendants to an additional area in the consideration apartments offered to them, is strengthened by the fact that the defendants did not present an alternative in which it is possible to obtain greater consideration in this project. Thus, as detailed above in detail in paragraph 46 above of the judgment, I am of the opinion that in order to establish refusal - and in particular where an apartment owner claims that it was possible to receive higher considerations - the recalcitrant tenant must present another possible alternative. And docue - not a theoretical conceptual alternative, but an alternative that can indeed be realized. In the present case, not only did the defendants not present a possible alternative in the form of another developer willing to give higher considerations, but taking into account the court's expert's determination that the profitability of the project is borderline (see also the testimony of the court's expert on this matter, from line 33 on page 22 to line 7 on page 23), it is clear that such an alternative does not exist. As for this, the court's expert testified explicitly on page 24, lines 16-21: