| Tel Aviv-Jaffa Magistrate’s Court | |
| Civil Case in Fast Track 28684-05-15 Maccabi Tel Aviv Football Company in Tax Appeal v. Ben Ari
External Case: 516560-01-15 |
|
| Before | The Honorable SeniorRegistrar Varda Schwartz
|
|
|
Plaintiff |
Maccabi Tel Aviv Football Ltd. |
|
|
Against
|
||
|
Defendant |
Assaf Ben Ari |
|
| Judgment |
- The plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant for a fixed sum at the Execution Office in the sum of ILS 21,543.
As part of the plaintiff's activity, as the operator of a football club, it entered into a business cooperation agreement with the defendant on July 22, 2013 for the purpose of marketing and selling the club's products for the club's fans (hereinafter: the "Agreement").
The plaintiff undertook to provide the defendant with branded products at a cost price when the defendant undertook to pack them in boxes that he would sell to the team's fans.
10% of the proceeds from these sales transactions will be paid to the plaintiff (hereinafter: the "Agreement").
According to the plaintiff, she supplied the defendant with products at a cost of ILS 19,750, but their consideration has not been paid to date. Therefore, she sued for them in this action, together with arrears interest in accordance with the provisions of the agreement.
- The defendant objected and denied his alleged liability. According to him, in addition to its undertaking to supply the branded products, the plaintiff undertook to allow the defendant advertising and marketing by all of the plaintiff's marketing means to promote the sale of the boxes on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, the team's website, mentions in the team's games, the team's magazine and other media of the group.
According to the defendant, the plaintiff delayed the start of marketing the distribution of the boxes, postponed the launch event of the project in a way that made the sale irrelevant, its collapse and its failure.
The plaintiff, the defendant claimed, supplied products that were not ordered in the wrong sizes and quantities, some of which were not supplied at all, and even refused to replace them.
In addition, the plaintiff violated the provisions of the agreement by selling the products it supplied to the defendant at prices lower than the cost price it demanded from the defendant for those products.