charges from a single transaction; Offset is possible even if the charge is not fixed.
Charges that are not part of a single transaction; Offset is only possible if the charge is fixed.
- Does the value of the products constitute a "fixed charge"? The answer to this question is yes, since the products are defined and detailed in the list (Appendix 4 to Nimrod's affidavit), and their values can be arithmetically calculated (quantity × list price).
- Is this a "single transaction"? There is room to argue that the promissory note and the current supply are part of a single business relationship that lasted for 15 years. In these circumstances, this can be viewed as a "single transaction" in the broad sense based on the commercial reality between the parties and the close connection between the charges.
- Moreover, the plaintiff repeatedly approached the defendant to collect the products , and the defendant refused to do so. In these circumstances, the defendant breached its duty to reduce the damage, and an offset should be allowed.
- Decision: The offset claim is accepted and therefore the sum of ILS 5,110 must be deducted from the balance of the debt. Therefore, the balance of the debt after the offset is ILS 13,350.
Conclusion
- The plaintiff is entitled to compensation from the defendant for the breach of the agreement and the failure to provide advance notice in the amount of ILS 18,780, together with linkage differences and interest from January 1, 2016 until the actual payment.
- The defendant is entitled to pay the balance of the debt in the amount of ILS 13,350, together with linkage differences and interest from January 1, 2016 until the actual payment.
- The above amounts are deductible. Therefore, after offset, the defendant will pay the plaintiff the difference: ILS 5,430 (13,350-18,780) together with linkage differences and interest from January 1, 2016 until the actual payment.
- As for the question of expenses, I have considered the following considerations:
First, the plaintiff won the claim partially because it was proven that the defendant breached her duty to provide advance notice, and that the demand for price adjustment was illegal.