Finally, I determine that the amount owed by the defendants is the sum specified by the company's attorney in the letter dated December 24, 2020 - ILS 560,000 plus VAT and linkage and interest differentials according to the agreement from the date that was fixed for each payment until the actual date of payment.
- Seventh damage - a total sum of ILS 1,035,805 due to a breach of contract by the plaintiff with protected tenants in the building. According to the plaintiff, she undertook in accordance with a settlement agreement with protected tenants in the building that their stores located in the building would be renovated according to the permit and that they would be given other units in the same property. Since it did not meet its obligations, a bank guarantee given to the protected tenants was forfeited. The defendants claimed that there was no connection between this damage and the 2018 agreement, because the settlement agreement had no mention in the 2018 agreement and therefore could not be foreseen by the defendants or could be associated with them. Indeed, the defendants are correct in their claim that there is no mention of the settlement agreement in the 2018 agreement or the bank guarantee. Hence, it is not possible to link the money that the plaintiff was forced to pay to the third parties to the conduct of the defendants, which was not proven that they were aware of the arrangements that the protected tenants had with the plaintiff. Moreover, even if I were to determine that the defendants were aware of this arrangement, it is unreasonable to obligate them to forfeit a bank guarantee, which is a very remote damage, and not foreseeable, as opposed to damage of monthly rent, for example. However, as stated, I do not see fit to charge this amount. This damage was therefore postponed.
- Eighth damage - Fees to banks due to the extension of a bank guarantee: Union Bank - Extension of a bank guarantee in favor of the Tel Aviv Municipality in connection with the project, a total of ILS 14,780; and to Discount Bank in the sum of ILS 5,233 for the extension of such a bank guarantee (see Appendices 20, 21 and 23A, 23B). This damage is confirmed as it is within the defendants' expectations. Therefore, it is possible to charge the full sums of ILS 20,013.
- Ninth damage - Bank Hapoalim, credit handling fees due to an increase in the loan principal in the plaintiff's account in the amount of ILS 300,000 as of February 24, 2019, since the subsidiary stopped paying the rent to the tenant. I have examined the claim and Appendix 22 and have not found that this obligation can be approved. There is no real reference to the details described. Therefore, this component is rejected.
- Tenth damage - In the agreement with the new tenant, Grace was given a three-month lease (ILS 152,100, including VAT) in order to enable him to make the necessary adjustments to operate the building for office purposes. I do not find a causal connection between the grace given to the new tenant to adapt the leased property to a building intended for offices and the defendants' breach of the agreement. This is an agreement signed between the parties after negotiations, and there is no ability to determine a causal connection between the breach of the 2018 agreement and the rent or the value of the rent determined in the agreement with the new tenant. Therefore, this component is rejected.
- Eleven damages - a sum of ILS 9,360,000 for "failure to carry out adaptation work at the hotel". The minimum investment amount determined in the agreement that the defendants will invest for the benefit of the hotel is ILS 8,000,000. According to the plaintiff, this sum also includes, beyond the letter of the law, the failure to carry out the finishing work in the restaurant.
The defendants argue in this regard: first, clause 7 of the 2018 agreement establishes a terminating clause that denies the plaintiff entitlement to compensation in the event of non-obtaining the approvals and/or failure to perform the works; two, this sum is not due to the plaintiff since it is a claim to enforce the lease agreement (payment of the amount stipulated therein), which the plaintiff is prevented from suing when she canceled the agreement with her own hands (in accordance with the provisions of section 2 of the Contracts (Remedies) Law); third, It is impossible to attach a claim for subsistence damages to the remedy of cancellation; Fourth, this is a double remedy, since the cancellation of the agreement allows the plaintiff to rent the property to another tenant, as she did, and to enter into another proceeding of improving the property by renting it out, as she sought to do with the defendants, and therefore compensation for failure to perform adaptation works constitutes double compensation; Fifth, insofar as the plaintiff's intention is to "prevent profit by increasing the value of the property", then the alleged difference in value in the real estate asset must be sued, and proven by an expert opinion - which was not done.