Civil Case (Jerusalem) 5433-01-18 Super Lang – Gardener and Farmer Ltd. v. Amgazit P.K. Ltd.

Judgment

Introduction and Factual Background

1. I have before me two proceedings that were consolidated for a joint hearing: a promissory note (civil case 16626-10-16 Amgazit F.K.  B Tax Appeal v.  Superlang Gardener and Farmer Ltd.), and a contractual claim (Civil Case 5433-01-18 Superlang Gardener and Farmer in Tax Appeal v.  Amgazit P.K.  Ltd.).
2. The dispute relates to a business relationship that existed between the parties for about 15 years, which ended in a dispute in 2015-2016.
3. The plaintiff Super Lang is a company that specializes in the marketing of gardening products, which operates a physical store in Moshav Ein Nekofa and an online store.  The company's executive director since 2015 is Nimrod Lang, the son of Eli Lang, the company's owner (for the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, Super Lang will be called "the plaintiff" in both proceedings).
4. The defendant Amgazit is a company engaged in the marketing of gas products.  The defendant's CEO during the period relevant to the lawsuit was Mr. Avi Ashkenazi (for the sake of convenience and to avoid confusion, Amgazit will be referred to as "the defendant" in both proceedings).
5. Between the years 2001-2016, there was a business relationship between the parties, in which the plaintiff purchased products from the defendant and sold them to private customers.
6. No comprehensive written agreement was signed between the parties.  The relationship was conducted by way of offer and acceptance, some through seasonal order forms, some through the defendant's sales agent, Mr. Amos Rubin, and some through online orders.
7. In March 2015, the plaintiff signed an order form for grill products, and in September 2015 a form for ordering heating products.  In these forms, the prices and the validity of the order were determined, and a stipulation appeared according to which the plaintiff undertook not to advertise the products at a price lower than the consumer prices stated on the form.
8. On July 13, 2014, the plaintiff signed a promissory note in the amount of ILS 100,000 in favor of the defendant, when Nimrod Lang guaranteed the note.
9. In May-October 2015, the parties corresponded regarding the advertising prices on the plaintiff's website.  Ashkenazi demanded that the plaintiff "fix" prices on the site, and the plaintiff objected to this demand.
10. On October 19, 2015, Nimrod sent a letter to Ashkenazi, in which he claimed that charging the distributor on behalf of the supplier for the purpose of publishing the price of products constitutes a restrictive arrangement in violation of the Restrictive Trade Practices Law.  The letter stated that the defendant refuses to supply products until the plaintiff agrees to this condition, and that the plaintiff has suffered financial damages and damage to reputation.
11. On December 28, 2015, Nimrod sent another letter, in which he described the continued delay in the delivery of goods ordered at the beginning of December 2015.
12. On December 30, 2015, the plaintiff filed a complaint with the Antitrust Commissioner.  On May 16.In 2016, a response was received stating that the Authority was examining its policy on the matter and was unable to examine the matter in light of the lack of manpower.
13. At the beginning of 2016, the defendant submitted the promissory note for execution at the Execution Office.
14. On January 2, 2018, the plaintiff filed a contractual claim against the defendant, and on June 10, 2018, the two cases were consolidated.

The Ottoman Settlement [Old Version] 1916