Civil Appeal 628/77 Gideon Hassid v. Israel Knopf

Judgment

Judge Ben-Porat: Appeal against the judgment of the Haifa District Court (Civil Case 820/77).

1. The first respondent (hereinafter: "Knopf") - against whom the appeal was dismissed by consent - is one of the owners of a plot in Hof Shemen, No. 3 Ophir Street in Haifa (hereinafter: "the leased"). The remaining part belongs to his sister-in-law, Leah Knopf.  The second respondent ("the design and manufacture of fiberglass products, Haifa, Ltd.) was an unprotected tenant of the leased property according to an agreement that was to expire on April 30, 1971, and the third respondent, Mr. Amir Ben-Shahar, is the manager of the company (both will be called, for short, "Ben Shahar").

The appellant, Gideon Hassid, was interested in renting the place in order to continue the factory of his father, a timber merchant, who passed away.  Knopf and the appellant signed a lease (P/2) for a period of two years, beginning on May 1, 1971.  It was determined that the contract was signed on February 11, 1971 that the appellant also paid 1,500 Israeli pounds on account of rent in addition to part of the lawyer's fees (Dr.  Eiger, Knopf's son-in-law) who drafted the contract.  To the contract, which was on a standard form, the parties added various conditions, including granting permission to the appellant to transfer the lease to a company that would establish a check, which was indeed established (S.  Hassid Ltd., is the second appellant).  Ben Shachar will not vacate the place in time, since a fiberglass yacht (nicknamed "The Boat") was under construction, and it was difficult to move it.  When Ben-Shahar refused to leave, Knopf agreed to stay for another year, with much higher rents than he had paid in the past.  At the same time, it was agreed between them that if Ben Shachar left early, he would be returned the banknotes for the rest of the hope.  Indeed, Ben Shahar vacated the leased property as early as February 1972, and in March a new lease was signed between Knopf and his sister-in-law on the one hand and the second appellant, S.  Hassid Ltd., on the other.