This clear contractual provision can indeed serve as the basis for the termination notice of the agreement as sent.
- The statement of claim did not find a claim against the validity of the termination notice The Agreement. It was stated that Danan was surprised by the fact that Shalhavot chose to cancel the agreement instead of keeping it (paragraph 27 of the statement of claim)[6], and that she hoped that flames would retract her (ibid., section 28).
- In the counter-statement of defense, too, no argument was found against the validity of the termination notice The Agreement. Flames It claimed that the termination notice under clause 8.2 of the agreement was sent after it became clear to it that in view of Danan's fundamental breaches, the engagement with it endangered the continuation of Lahavot's business vis-à-vis major customers and its reputation in the market (paragraph 37 of the counterclaim), that Lehavot was entitled under the agreement to cancel it by giving such prior notice, and that according to it, it was also entitled to cancel it without prior notice due to Danan's breaches, but chose to Not to do so (paragraph 38 of the statement of counterclaim). All the arguments in this matter are on a positive level, As opposed to general denial, is that Lehavot's conduct stemmed from its own considerations, following a change of men in its management (paragraphs 37-38 of the counter-statement of defense).
- In the Conclusion Stage Uploaded On behalf of these arguments, which can be understood as attempting to detract from the validity of the termination notice of the agreement. None of these are really, and not only because of the The date of their upload.
- In the summaries it was argued that the contractual provision (clause 8.2) is A clause "of lawyers" that the parties had no intention of implementing (paragraph 16 of my summaries Danan). It is not clear what such a claim means; When concluding an agreement, the parties generally do not intend to bring it to a conclusion without being accepted Results For whom the engagement was made in the first place. They also do not want clauses to be activated Contractual related to infringements or dispute resolution, for example. Some will say that when an engagement is successful, the parties do not remember where the signed document is located, and certainly not its details. This does not detract from the validity of stipulations dealing with these situations, and thus the validity of a stipulation that allows cancellation by prior notice without reason. Thus Especially when it comes to a commercial agreement between veteran companies that is accompanied by legal advice. Danan was aware Real-time Win The contract that was granted to Lehavot to bring the agreement to an end with advance notice and consulted with her lawyer on the matter (Ronen, pp. 230, 13-21; Dekel, pp. 326, 21-22). It is certainly possible that Danan thought and believed that this right would not be used (Ronen, pp. 231, paras. 4-9; Navot, p. 273, s. 29-274, s. 3; p. 326, s. 25-27), apparently Lahavot also believed this way over a long period of time; There is no dispute that the CEO of Lehavot at the time, Nir, had great faith in the agreement and wanted it to be implemented. Hall None All of the above in order to detract from the validity of the contractual stipulation and the right it grants.
- On the merits of the matter as well You can refer to the testimonies on behalf of this According to them, Except for the habit of the market, In the first period, "we had to prove that we had the capabilities that everything was working properly" (Udi, pp. 372, 3-4), it was also intended to be "some kind of pilot run where we are actually undergoing training and whether we are suitable and whether it is okay that if, we get into this thing", and "it was actually to see if, uh, Flames are ready to accept A.. We are into this thing. If we are, a. Danan is capable of containing this entire event" (p. 246, paras. 8-15; p. 254, 11-12). You take it for granted Learn There may be a different conclusion.
- In any event, whatever the significance of such a claim, the burden of proving it rests with the claimant (see above). This is a great deal of argument Because Flames Didn't Testify Causes Miscellaneous who acted On her behalf in real time, and referred to case law regarding the significance of such abstention. Particular emphasis was placed on the non-testimony of Nir, who served as the CEO of Lehavot at the time of the engagement and throughout much of its existence. Indeed, the absence of Nir's testimony in the proceeding may raise questions (p. 32, s. 10; for an explanation given in another testimony: p. 69, s. 8-17), but the matter is always context-dependent. When an allegation of one intention or another is raised at the stage of the engagement regarding a contractual clause that is inconsistent with its language, and when the claim was not explicitly raised in the pleadings, the fact that the party who was present on behalf of Lehavot at the time of the engagement was not brought to testify does not act in accordance with the party's obligation, Not to mention acting in accordance with the obligation of the person who raised the argument.
- Another argument that was identified in the summaries of this case (at p. 18) is that Lehavot's use of the right granted to it in clause 8.2 of the Agreement is tantamount to a bad faith insistence on a contractual right contrary to To Article 39 of the Contracts Law. In her pleadings, Danan found it appropriate to raise claims of bad faith according to Article 39 of the Contracts Law, but it did so in other contexts, and not with regard to the notice of termination of the agreement (paragraph 42 of the statement of claim; paragraph 19 of the statement of counter-defense). The inclusion of a general statement in the summaries stage is not weighty, even if it is accompanied by a phrase such as "There is no dispute because"[7]. I didn't really find her body either.
- The notice of termination of the agreement was duly given. In accordance with this announcement and the number of days, the agreement was supposed to end on January 16, 2018 (approximately).
Immediate Cancellation Notice (September 2017)
- Immediate cancellation notice sent on behalf of Lehavot, September 2017, Relied on clause 8.3 of the Agreement.
At the beginning of clause 8.3 of the Agreement, it is stated that without derogating from any other remedy granted to it by law, Lehavot will be entitled to give notice of the immediate termination of the Agreement "immediately upon the occurrence of one of the cases listed below", and upon receipt of such notice, the Agreement will "expire and will be cancelled on its own" and Danan will have no claim thereto.