Kotok testified that he did not meet with the plaintiffs at the time of signing the sale agreement, but that he met them when they chose the apartment (p. 3, paras. 11-14). In other words, Kotok confirmed that he did not know, on a personal level, whether the plaintiffs received the parking plan only at the time of the agreement or not (ibid., paras. 30-34). And yes, he also did not know whether the plaintiffs were presented with the model (p. 4, paras. 14-16).
Nikha testified that he did not meet the plaintiffs during the purchase of the apartment (p. 9, paras. 28-32). Nor did he know who signed the sale agreement with the plaintiffs (p. 10, para. 6). Nikha also did not know whether the plaintiffs saw the sketch before signing the agreement (p. 11, paras. 11-14).
- Moreover, when Kotok was asked whether the plaintiffs could have understood from the sketch that it was a matter of height differences, he replied: "From the script itself, I don't know. From the model unequivocally, yes" (ibid., paras. 35-36). However, it was not proven that the plaintiffs saw the model, and what they saw in it with regard to parking, the plaintiff was not asked about it in the cross-examination.
- Moreover, when Kotok was asked whether another family received parking similar to the one received by the plaintiffs, he replied: "To the best of my recollection, there was one other such parking in the neighborhood... " (p. 4, paras. 29-32).
It should be remembered that this is a project of 1,5 to 19 apartments (ibid., paras. 34). When asked whether it was precisely because of the nature of the parking, whether someone from Shafir was supposed to emphasize it to them, he replied: "unequivocally" (p. 5, paras. 10-15). I was impressed by the witness's honest testimony.
- She took testimony that the parking that was given was physically closer to the building (p. 14, paras. 6-9). But even this argument does not justify the non-disclosure.
It therefore follows that it was precisely this unusual parking in the Ein Da project, that Shafir would have been expected to present the data openly, and not suffice with claims that the plaintiffs' signature was sufficient; that the plaintiffs should have taken experts, etc., as will be further explained later.
- According to the architect Danino, there is a staircase marking in the plan, and this indicates differences in levels in the parking lot (p. 7, paras. 35-36). When asked in his cross-examination whether a client should understand from the sketch that there are elevation differences, he replied: "Again, I don't know what the client understands or doesn't understand" (p. 8, paras. 5-7).
- Between me and me, what is clear to the architect is not necessarily clear to the buyer of an apartment from the community. Shapir's captains had to make sure that the client understood.
- The appraiser testified that the parking that appears in the sale agreement corresponds to the actual situation (p. 16, question 4). It seems to me that this is not the question, the question is what Shafir revealed to the plaintiffs.
- Beyond the aforesaid, the plaintiff testified in these words: "... In my opinion, we did not receive all the information that we should have received" (p. 41, paras. 16). And before that she said: "I am not an expert, I do not come from the field, there is no way I could have known and somehow understood" (p. 40, paras. 30-31).
After hearing the plaintiff's testimony, I gave credence to her version that the matter of the location of the parking lot, at least, was not brought before her as it should be.
- From a perusal of N/5, which is the sketch of the parking in relation to Building 18, it seems to me that it is difficult to understand that this is a parking lot that is not on the same level as the building. The plaintiffs are correct that from the sketch any reasonable person will understand that the parking is adjacent to the building.
In this context, the expert on behalf of the plaintiffs testified that the drawings do not show the levels, nor do they show the difference in height (p. 4, paras. 15-16). It seems to me that the purpose that the client, who is not a professional, will understand.
- Shiovitz was the salesman who sold the apartment to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs attached to their affidavits a transcript of the plaintiff's conversation with Shiovitz (Appendix 9), where he said:
"... You should also feel free to send an email" ' My father the salesman didn't tell us that it was in another building and Tatata...', I don't have a problem, I'm not ashamed of it, I really didn't notice that it was in another building.