12-34-56-78 Chekhov v. State of Israel, P.D. 51 (2)Main Arguments of the Parties
Summary of the plaintiff's arguments
- The plaintiff claims that the defendant breached the agreement between the parties unilaterally, violating the duty of good faith, imposing a restrictive arrangement and creating a false representation. Alternatively, even if the agreement was not breached, the defendant breached its duty to give the plaintiff reasonable advance notice before terminating the engagement.
- According to the plaintiff, the real reason for terminating the engagement is her refusal to accept the defendant's demand to coordinate minimum prices, a demand that constitutes a violation of the Restrictive Trade Practices Law. The plaintiff claims that the defendant made up other false claims, such as debt, and the lack of a gas license, in order to justify the cessation of the supply.
- The plaintiff is demanding subsistence compensation for loss of profits, based on an expert opinion estimating the annual profit at ILS 37,500. The plaintiff is seeking compensation for 10 years of loss, in the sum of ILS 375,000, as well as compensation for damage to reputation and expenses.
- The plaintiff raises an offset claim in the amount of ILS 5,110 for goods that remained in her possession and which the defendant refused to collect, and also claims that a check in the amount of ILS 8,538 sent to the defendant was not paid.
Summary of the defendant's arguments
- The defendant claims that the agreement between the parties was a seasonal agreement that was renewed annually, and at the end of the last year, 2015, it came to an end without renewal. The defendant reserves its right not to renew the agreement without explanation.
- The reasons for not renewing the engagement, according to the defendant, are rooted in Nimrod Lang's behavior towards its employees, unpaid debts, and the lack of a permit for an auxiliary warehouse for storing gas tanks.
- The defendant argues that the stipulation regarding the publication of minimum prices relates only to advertising and not to sale, and therefore does not constitute a restrictive arrangement. The plaintiff was entitled to sell at any price, but not to advertise a price lower than the recommended consumer price.
- As for the debt, the defendant claims that according to its accounting cards , the balance of the debt on January 4, 2016 was ILS 28,842. Even if the plaintiff's cards are received, the balance of the debt is ILS 18,460 (ILS 9,922 + an unpaid check in the sum of ILS 8,538).
- The defendant rejects the claim of offset because the plaintiff does not meet the conditions of section 53 of the Contracts Law, and because according to the expert opinion on behalf of the defendant, some of the products that allegedly remained in the plaintiff's possession were sold by the plaintiff in the years 2016-2017.
- Quoted from Nevoregarding compensation, the defendant claims that if advance notice is given at all, the scope of the compensation cannot exceed a profit of one year only, and that too according to the average and not according to the data of the previous year. The defendant refers to an expert opinion according to which the annual profit did not exceed ILS 26,000, and according to the average, it was ILS 25,767.
The Fence of Dispute
- The main disputes between the parties relate to the following questions:
Was there an agreement and what is its nature?;