I did not find it necessary to address other arguments of the parties, which do not require a decision or are not relevant, including:
- The defendant's claim that his signature on the certificate of delivery of the warning letter that was sent to him was forged - even if I would assume in favor of the defendant that he did not receive the warning letter - does not prejudice the plaintiff's arguments on the merits that the defendant unilaterally breached and cancelled the agreement, for reasons of economic feasibility.
- With regard to the defendant's claim that the plaintiff did not make any real investments in the installation of the system and at the time of cancellation did not install a single panel on the roof, in accordance with case law and contract law, the right to subsistence compensation arose upon the formulation of a binding agreement between the parties, even then there was a reasonable expectation of fulfillment of the contract, and when one of the parties breaches the contract, the injured party is entitled to subsistence compensation, subject to proof of the necessary components.
- The defendant's claims that the plaintiff delayed filing the claim should also be rejected - the defendant did not rely on or change his situation for the worse on the basis of the alleged "delay" that was not proven. The defendant hastened to sign an agreement with Ormesh only about a month after the signing of the agreement with the plaintiff, which means that the change in the defendant's situation took place very close to the signing of the agreement with the plaintiff and not after the passage of time or following the alleged delay. In addition, the fact that the plaintiff did not rush and rushed to file the claim shortly after the breach of contract should not stand in its way as long as she did seek to finance her steps and assess the expected damages or reach agreements with the defendant after she also sent him a warning letter.
- The defendant's argument that the partnership agreement is a discriminatory agreement should be rejected - on the contrary, even though the plaintiff was required to bear the costs of setting up the system and the risks involved therein alone, the defendant according to the agreement was supposed to receive more than half of the profits that would accrue from the system after deducting installation and maintenance expenses (53% - clause 8.1 of the agreement), so that it was not even a matter of equal distribution of profits between the parties (half of each party). In this regard, I accept the testimony of the plaintiff's manager that as a rule in these contracts the profits are distributed equally - half of each party, whereas here only after negotiations with the defendant and in light of his insistence did the plaintiff agree to allow him to enjoy 53% of the expected profits.
In addition, it was not proven that the plaintiff forced the defendant to sign the agreement, and the defendant had more than enough time to consider his steps before signing the contract with the plaintiff. This is not an agreement that the defendant signed casually or under improper pressure on the part of the plaintiff. It has certainly not been proven that the terms of the agreement are discriminatory. The defendant also did not present an expert opinion in the field, who would examine the terms of the agreement and find that the provisions of the agreement are discriminatory in relation to the accepted terms in the market.
- With regard to the damages awarded to the plaintiff in other cases, the plaintiff argued that these were cases in which the customer was the one who paid for the system and not in a partnership transaction as in our case, and in any case each case should be examined according to its circumstances and the evidentiary body.
The result: