Afterwards, however, Mr. Knepfler himself abandoned the issue of accounting for the past, and focused his attention on the possibility of acquiring the full rights in the French companies. In other words, despite all the claims of deception, Mr. Knepfler saw a great opportunity to acquire the rights to all the assets at an affordable price.
The defendants claim that he tried to defraud the company, but here too this is an extreme argument. Mr. Knafler did not act improperly, but rather took advantage of a worthy business opportunity to acquire rights in expensive properties at a reduced price, which could have been obtained in light of the company's cash flow crisis. It was a move by an experienced businessman. However, it seems that he did not think that Mr. Nehemia would be able to come up with the matter regarding another business entity that is no less experienced and skilled - the Dayan Group, and the transaction for the sale of 76% of the holdings in the French property companies was closed with them, and on better terms from the company's point of view than those offered by the plaintiff.
In other words, Mr. Knepfler did not act due to a constraint according to which he wanted to save funds that had already been invested, and therefore he proceeded with the deal with those who he claimed deceived him. He acted in light of an opportunity that he had identified, to purchase assets of great value for a modest consideration, and as for past disputes, but they were expressed in consideration in relation to a small component of the consideration that was agreed. He chose, by conscious choice, to proceed with the deal despite all the risks in it, in the hope of generating a substantial profit in a short time.
- What is the legal significance of these words?
- With regard to the possibility of canceling the agreement in light of the allegations of deception, including the deception regarding the non-disclosure of the dispute with the management company, Mr. Knepfler waived the possibility of cancellation when he chose to move forward with the transaction and even deepen it.
Section 15 of the Contracts Law, which deals with deception, gives the erring party the power to cancel the contract. "A person who entered into a contract due to a mistake that is the result of a deception made by the other party or another on his behalf, is entitled to cancel the contract" [emphasis added]. It is allowed, but not obligated. And why? Because he may still prefer to continue the engagement for his own reasons. Hence, deception gives the erring party the power to cancel the agreement, and the exercise of force is at its discretion.