In addition, clause 16 of the agreement states: "Maccabi Tel Aviv will act at its discretion in order to provide SCOUTING with assistance in advertising, marketing and promotion of the box on Maccabi Tel Aviv's existing platforms - such as: the team's website, Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/YouTube of the team, mentions in games The team, the team's magazine and other media of Maccabi Tel Aviv, all in a manner that Maccabi Tel Aviv deems appropriate and as often as Maccabi Tel Aviv deems appropriate."
It is not a matter of discretion whether to help, but only where and in what dose.
- There is no dispute that the products listed in clause 5 of the agreement were supplied to the defendant in September 2013.
The defendant's argument is that the plaintiff did not in fact cooperate with the defendant and did not allow advertising, marketing and sales promotion as undertaking. As a result of this lack of cooperation, the marketing of the box was damaged to the point that it became irrelevant.
On the other hand , the plaintiff claims that the delay in the removal of the box and the advertising processes are rooted in the defendant's conduct, and that it was the defendant who breached the agreement by not paying the price for the products he received from the plaintiff on the date set for this under the agreement.
According to the provision of clause 13 of the agreement, the defendant undertook to pay the plaintiff the cost of the products on credit terms of current + 30, i.e., the payment date falls within 30 days of the month in which the supply was made. In our case, not before the first of November.
There is no dispute that the launch event of the box took place on December 9, 2013 , despite the fact that the soccer season began in September, which hurt the box's sales. According to the defendant , in light of the delays imposed on him by the plaintiff.
Did the defendant prove that the launch event was delayed because of the plaintiff' s side?In any event, all of the plaintiff's other alleged omissions, according to the defendant, have their place after the launch event, since there is no doubt that no cooperation was required in advertising and marketing the box before it was launched to the public in December 2013.
- The plaintiff's request for payment of the products was already in December 2013, as indicated by an email attached by the defendant himself dated December 25, 2013 (Appendix 2 to the defendant's affidavit). was also attached as Appendix 6 to Tal Mualem's affidavit) in which the plaintiff's representative complained specifically regarding the delay in the sale of the box from September to December. Already there, the defendant was granted an extension to pay for the products until December 31, 2013. The plaintiff's representative Tal tells the defendant: "The merchandise was given to you to prepare the boxes at the beginning of September about three months ago, you had enough time to put the boxes up for sale, I can't sit and wait for you to be kind enough to start selling the products.."
The defendant relied on email correspondence between the parties, but no previous email was attached to the date of the launch event in December 2013 , and there is no evidence to support the defendant's claim that the delay in the launch event stemmed from a lack of cooperation or any omission on the part of the plaintiff.