The parties disagree as to the proper interpretation of this provision, including whether it is a unique jurisdiction clause or a parallel.
- In any event, and if we return to the general background of the dispute, according to the plaintiff, already at that time the defendant had a desire to terminate the engagement with her, and she in fact asked to enter into an agreement with another distributor. Therefore, she sent and signed the agreement, in order to enjoy the advantages it granted her, including the ability to terminate the engagement in accordance with its terms.
It was therefore argued that this conduct was done in bad faith. Thisis while the plaintiff has invested many and successful efforts, over decades, as aforesaid, to promote the defendant's products. On January 1, 2023, the defendant announced the cancellation of the distribution agreement with the plaintiff, and in accordance with the agreement, she was given advance notice and an opportunity to complete various pending transactions.
- Against this background, the plaintiff filed the statement of claim in which she claimed that the cancellation of the agreement was done unlawfully and in bad faith. It was argued that the cancellation notice did not specify the reasons for the cancellation; The defendant did not summon the plaintiff for a preliminary investigation; Prior to the cancellation, she did not address the complaints that the plaintiff forwarded to her, which she received from customers regarding the use of her products. It was further claimed that as part of the defendant's desire to terminate the engagement with the plaintiff, she demanded that the latter meet unrealistic sales targets, and this matter also served as an excuse for the termination of the relationship. It was also claimed that the defendant made use of the plaintiff's trade secrets, took the details of potential customers, all with the intention of completing the transactions that were open at the time herself, or through the new distributor with whom she sought to contract.
Copied from NevoAccording to the plaintiff, all of these also amount to a breach of a statutory duty, i.e., a breach of the Commercial Torts Law, 5759-1999; dictating prices in contravention of the Economic Competition Law, 5748-1988 (hereinafter: the Economic Competition Law or the Competition Law); enrichment rather than in law, and negligence.