"And somehow we wanted to bridge the gaps. There were negotiations between me and the consultant, they explained the history to me, and somehow I made a proposal that he didn't agree to, that's a certain percentage of the project's execution. Then he explained to himself in the documents that the project was on Netivei Israel, and that there was the accepted price list for Netivei Israel, and he had a price quote... He explained to me that this was the proposal within the accepted framework of Netivei Israel, and that was what was closed with the mayor at the time... Somehow I came to a negotiation with him, with a compromise that I could live with in the reasoning and analysis he gave me, I remember it, and I passed it on to the treasurer... I came with the second proposal to the treasurer, and he told me to leave, for my part, let him go to court through a ruling, it is better for me than for me to sign with him and now I have an accompanying accountant, and this is the way to go."
- Thus, I was also persuaded that the Gilad Junction project and the consideration paid there should not be ignored as an additional evidentiary tool, albeit a small one, in determining the amount that the defendant paid to the plaintiff in the Shazar Junction project.
Although this is another project whose execution was also not carried out, it cannot be ignored that the price proposals for the two projects were given in close proximity (Gilad Junction of April 3, 2018 and Shazar Junction of May 17, 2018; Appendices 1A and 1B to the claim), both were made according to the tariff of Netivei Israel (section A, ibid.), both amounted to the same amount (ILS 500,000) and both are similar in the nature of the work detailed therein.
- According to the defendant, there is no room to draw a comparison between the various projects because the estimate of the execution of the project at the Gilad Junction was approximately ILS 1.6 million, compared to the estimate of the execution of the project at the Shazar Junction, which was more than ILS 4 million.
According to the defendant, it is customary to pay the planners fees according to a percentage of the cost of executing the project, in such a way that according to the defendant it must pay the plaintiff, at most, the sum of ILS 56,407, which constitutes 3% of the cost of executing the project, which stood as aforesaid, a total of approximately ILS 1.6 million. According to the defendant, the accepted range with regard to the planner's salary ranges from 3% to 4% of the project's performance estimate, as also appears from the testimonies in the case (see the defendant's counsel's words at p. 43, paras. 16-18 and at p. 44, paras. 12-17).