In its lawsuit, Bynet petitions for compensation for the loss of profits caused to it due to the unlawful cancellation of the agreement; payments for transactions that she had to complete; loss of profits in light of the defendant's dictates; for payment of open debts; for damages caused to it when customers did not receive a satisfactory response from the defendant, etc. The amount of the claim was set at ILS 7,500,000.
- As for the jurisdiction clause, the plaintiff referred to it in the statement of claim. It was argued that this is a parallel stipulation, which does not negate the ability to litigate in the Israeli forum; Alternatively, it is a discriminatory stipulation in a uniform contract.
- Spirnet claimed in its statement of defense that the lawsuit at issue was baseless. A non-exclusive distribution agreement was entered into between the parties, and for an indefinite period. In accordance with the agreement, it was determined that each party may terminate the engagement for any reason, with written notice of 60 days' advance, and further agreed that a breach of defined obligations would allow the immediate cancellation of the agreement. The agreement also stipulated that in the event of termination, Bynet would transfer to the defendant any confidential information in its possession, and also set a ceiling on the defendant's liability, as part of the accounting between the parties.
The defendant claims that she was not satisfied with the plaintiff's conduct, and decided to terminate the agreement not due to a breach, even though she already believed that it had been breached. At that time, the plaintiff began to raise various claims, and did not meet her other obligations, and therefore the defendant decided to terminate the engagement with her due to a breach of her obligations. The defendant further denies any liability for any compensation against the plaintiff, and notes that she has a claim for offset, in an amount that exceeds the amount of the claim.