Thus, the plaintiff also did not attach an opinion that would relate to the specific system and the possibility of a dramatic decrease in its output.
- The plaintiff sought to rely on the judgment of the Nazareth District Court in Civil Case (Nazareth) 61680-02-18 Yoel Hillel v. Avraham Golan (published in Nevo, hereinafter: "The Hillel Case"), where an output of 1,650 kWh per year was also determined, but the same determination also came in the wake of expert opinions submitted in the same case.
- Moreover, and as was also determined in the Hillel case, in addition to the annual output, which remained an unknown figure, the plaintiff also refrained from attaching opinions or data regarding a long list of other data, which could affect the future profit from the establishment of the system, components that were also mentioned in the judgment of the District Court in the Hillel case, including depreciation of the system, financing costs (clause 6.20 of the agreement allowed the plaintiff to receive financial support). Maintenance and cleaning costs, applicable taxes (see section 6.19), expected malfunctions, insurance expenses, the need to replace converters, the length of the system.
Clause 8.1 of the Agreement explicitly states that the profits must be deducted:
"All the company's ongoing expenses for the purpose of maintaining the system, including: insurance, legal expenses, ongoing maintenance costs, management, malfunction repair costs, and any related costs related to the system"
- The size of the system - the plaintiff also did not prove the actual size of the system that could have been installed - although in its summaries it claimed the size of a system that provides 104.5 KW, but in the agreement itself it was recorded that a cave with a capacity of up to 100 kWh would be installed, subject to the possibilities available on the land or approvals that would be received, and that the plaintiff "does not commit to any minimum size of the system" (clause 3.4 of the agreement).
Although in this matter the plaintiff attached drawings with the number of panels (255) and the supply of the system to 104.55 KW, these documents were not submitted as an opinion, but rather preliminary drawings that were prepared as a preliminary plan for installation on the roof. In this regard, Mr. Gal Berkowitz, a technical manager on behalf of the plaintiff, testified and confirmed that he himself did not edit the drawings, but rather an external drawing, who was not summoned to testify. He further stated that when the sketch is ready, it is transferred to the landowner's review, but in our case there was no dispute that the drawings were not transferred to the defendant, which indicates that these are indeed only preliminary drawings.