Unilateral cancellation of the agreement
- As the scholars Prof. Shalev and Dr. Adar point out in their book: "A party that disavows a valid contract and notifies the other of its 'cancellation' is nothing but a breach of that contract... Such an illegal 'cancellation' - like any other breach of the contract - has no power to detract in any way from the validity of the contract and its binding force" (p. 544, paragraph 8.04).
Thus, the agreement was cancelled by the defendant unilaterally and unlawfully without sending a notice of cancellation, and without agreeing to cancel it, and therefore he should be considered as having breached the agreement.
Reliance Compensation - Expenses Incurred by the Plaintiff as a Result of the Contract
- The plaintiff sought to charge the defendant for expenses incurred during the period during which she worked to promote the agreement until she learned by chance through the IEC that the defendant had breached the agreement and contracted with another company. In this regard, it sought to obligate the defendant to the following components:
- ILS 1,902 - an advance payment she paid to the IEC as an initial payment for handling the application (Appendix C to the plaintiff's affidavit).
- 30,000 ILS, agent fees, travel and handling agreements, including wages.
- ILS 15,000 handling the registration of rights.
- The problem is that the plaintiff did not prove these components, except for an advance payment she paid to the IEC as an initial payment for handling the application at the defendant's expense.
- With regard to the sum of ILS 30,000 in the costs of employees, agents, travel, and handling agreements, including wages, the plaintiff argued that since these are salaried employees, it is not possible to present a separate figure regarding the salary paid for the project. These claims must be rejected. The plaintiff is presumed that the accountant on her behalf could have presented details, or at least an estimate of the work hours required to handle the project (or by the direct manager) along with a figure of average hourly wages. No basic data was presented that would allow the defendant to be charged for this component, including hourly wages, and the estimated number of hours invested in promoting the project. Furthermore, the witness on behalf of the plaintiff confirmed that one of the draftsmen who worked on the preparation of the drawings was an external employee of the company and hence the plaintiff should certainly have approved his working hours and salary, and hence it was at least possible to present the salary that was approved for that employee for those plans/drawings, even if partially.
- The demand for compensation in the amount of ILS 15,000 for the costs of handling and registering the rights was also not proven and no reference was presented to substantiate this component, especially since as aforesaid, the agreement was breached in the early stages when the panels had not yet been installed and the system had not yet been inspected by the IEC. To the extent that a registration was indeed made that required payment, the plaintiff is presumed to have had these documents in her possession and that she could have presented them.
In light of all of the above, the plaintiff's demand for reliance compensation should be rejected, since these components were not proven, except for a payment of ILS 1,902 that was paid to the IEC.