The defendant claimed that at the end of the day he did not set up stands at any of the team's games. It is not clear why, nor has it been proven that the reason for this lies in the plaintiff's behavior. It was also not proven that the placement of stalls in 3-4 games, in which the plaintiff allowed the defendant to set up sales stalls, was not sufficient to enable effective marketing of the box.
Therefore, even in this omission claim, the defendant did not prove his claims.
- One omission was indeed proven by the defendant and the plaintiff did not deny her actions, and that was the advertising and sale of some of the products she supplied to the defendant on the plaintiff's sales site at a price lower than the price of the cost of the products that the defendant was required to pay.
There is no doubt that in any event, the marketing of the products on the plaintiff's website harms the sales of the box. The team's fans will not purchase the box if they can get the products stored in it at a much lower price than what they had to spend on buying the entire box, even if it contains other products.
This action is a violation of the plaintiff's undertaking to cooperate with the defendant in marketing the box.
In an email dated December 18, 2013, the defendant asks the plaintiff: "Tell me, what happens with the prices on the website? You told me you were taking them down." In an email dated December 22, 2013, the defendant continues: "Don't forget to cancel the sale on the T-shirts, flags and the iPhone sticker."
The plaintiff's representative replies in an email dated December 25, 2013: "I reserve the right to sell the goods even at a loss as I did, I don't intend to give you explanations as to why I did it, with all due respect."
In an email dated December 26, 2013, the defendant replies: "If you don't intend to promote the box on the site in a unique way, it's a waste of our time and all the investment we made on our part, that's the little you promised to do."
This is an advertisement from the date of launch, December 9, 2013, until December 25, 2013 , when the plaintiff accepted the defendant's request and removed the offer from the website.
- The defendant complained half-heartedly that he had received products from the plaintiff that were not ordered, in the wrong sizes and quantities, and that products that were ordered were not supplied (paragraph 10 of the affidavit of the main witness). The evidence for this was concentrated in emails exchanged between the parties.
Logic requires that a claim regarding a discrepancy between the goods supplied and the goods ordered arise close to the date of delivery in September.