Danan's CEO at the time was asked about cases in which Danan rejected service calls for buses, on the grounds that "it's not profitable, it's far away, we don't send a technician there" and saw this as Danan's legitimate answer to a service call (p. 384, s. 27 - p. 385, s. 2).
- Such conduct is inconsistent with the provisions of the agreement, which include an explicit commitment by Danan to provide the services efficiently and quickly, to the satisfaction of Lehavot's customers and in accordance with the schedules required by the customers (clause 2.2 of the agreement; and see, for example, clause 4.14).
In light of this conclusion, there is no need to elaborate on the question of whether the quality of service provided in the field of buses is also, when possible, was defective in a manner that amounts to a violation (see, for example: M/112, M/109, M/144 correspondence August 2016).
- Dekel explained the refusal to hire a technician when it did not pay off financially for Danan, by the fact that Danan did not receive the profitable parts of the service ("the cream") that Lahavot left to herself or to the parties she delegated: "They didn't give me the cream, they only gave me the sour fruits that they put together [rotted] on the side, go now to Jerusalem, take one bus and come back because you signed a contract with me" (p. 346, s. 28 - p. 347, s. 1). "Q: So what you're saying if I understand is that we actually got the, A: The sour fruit. Q: Exactly sour fruit. And we really said sometimes we don't want to do it and we won't do it because the cream either stayed in the 'flames' and 'flames' does it or the garages do it right? A: Correct" (p. 347, paras. 20-25).
Dekel didn't know if Lehavot kept more profitable jobs for itself ("I have no idea"), and as far as he was concerned, it meant nothing but the fact that Danan didn't get certain jobs ("Lehavot gave it to someone else, maybe I don't know. I know that I did not accept them, what 'Lehavot' did, it was none of my business", p. 347, s. 26 - p. 348, s. 2). When he was asked whether in fact Lahavot had taken the law into its own hands when it decided which calls to respond, his answer was that Shalhavot had taken the law into its own hands (apparently in the matter of entities that could have given approvals) for commercial reasons, "Lehavot went commercially and said to herself, 'I don't care about the agreement because commercially I earn more here' (p. 348, 24 - p. 249, 9).