I examined this damage, and according to the 2018 agreement, in the grace clause for the rent to the hotel, a mechanism of calculation related to the period that will take the defendants to obtain a permit for the deviant use of the hotel (clause 5.1.2.3 of the 2018 agreement). This is evidence of what was stated in the affidavit of the company's attorney, that the grace for the rent in respect of both the restaurant and the hotel is a significant practical-economic participation of the plaintiff in the renovation of the building. Since the renovation did not begin at all, and no permits were received for the renovation even after a period of more than two years had passed since the signing of the agreement, the plaintiff is correct in her demand to receive the rent amounts on them and waived for the purpose of an investment that was not made. Therefore, the sum of ILS 1,824,000 must be charged in full for this component.
- Sixth damage - non-payment of the rent in arrears - ILS 958,866.
The letter of the company's attorney dated December 24, 2020 (Appendix T to the plaintiff's affidavit) indicates that in real time it was claimed that three full months of rent, October, November, December 2020, were not paid according to ILS 130,000 (before VAT) per month, i.e. ILS 390,000 (before VAT), and in addition, in respect of the "Corona Arrangement" a sum of ILS 58,000 in October 2020 and another ILS 56,000 twice in November and December 2020 (all before VAT), in this regard see paragraph 3 of the letter of the company's attorney dated December 24, 2020:
Therefore, the original amount of the debt according to the aforementioned letter is ILS 560,000, to which VAT and linkage differentials and interest must be added to each payment from the date of payment set out in the agreement or the Corona arrangement (as the case may be) until the actual payment.
In addition, the plaintiff's claim that the Corona arrangement was canceled because the amounts set out in it were not paid should be examined, and therefore the full rent should be charged according to the agreement and not according to the arrangement. In this regard, it should be noted that in paragraph 3 of the aforementioned letter , it is indeed written: "Your clients contacted the company with a request for a benefit paid during the first corona period. Beyond the letter of the law, it was agreed to give them a benefit in the rent, but they did not meet the arrangement they proposed, therefore, the benefit/arrangement is canceled and your clients are asked to complete all the payments." In other words, the Corona arrangement was canceled because the defendants did not comply with it, and therefore the payment was prima facie supposed to return to the full rent. At the same time, I will note that the Corona arrangement was not presented and it is not clear which months were not paid in full (see the testimony of the company's attorney, pages 42-45 of the minutes of May 7, 2024). Moreover, since the Corona arrangement was not presented explicitly and in detail, i.e., what was paid and for which months, the calculation that was attached as Appendix 11 to the affidavit of the company's attorney cannot be a substitute for proving the arrangement, since it is only a calculation. I did not receive a satisfactory explanation on this matter, and moreover, the compute was not brought to testify. Therefore, since the COVID-19 arrangement has not been sufficiently proven, I cannot fully approve the claim component.