The Meaning of the Authorization Letter
- The entire claim is based on the authorization letter quoted above, and the disputes in relation to it were two. Is it a matter of giving exclusivity to Draco and was the exclusivity given in relation to the products that were sold at the end of the day, which are the Mocha 2.5 product without Wi-Fi?
- While Draco claims that this is an exclusivity agreement for the Mocha project and that the Mocha 2/2.5 product with or without Wi-Fi is all part of the same project, Luster and Excel claim that this is not an exclusivity agreement and that in any case it refers to the Mocha 2 product with Wi-Fi only, which is the product that was developed in 2019 when the authorization letter was signed and then does not apply to the products that are the subject of the lawsuit.
- I will answer the questions before answering the questions and clarify that I found that the parties did indeed agree on exclusivity to Draco, but this agreement cannot be attributed to the product that was marketed at the end of the day by Luster (Mocha 2.5 without Wi-Fi).
- The starting point of interpretation of an agreement is its language (see, for example, additional civil discussion 8100/19 Bibi Dirt Roads and Development in a Tax Appeal v. Israel Railways in a Tax Appeal [Nevo]). Only to the extent that the language is not clear and can be interpreted in a number of ways should we turn to additional rules of interpretation.
- As will be clarified below, the question of exclusivity is clear and arises from the language of the agreement and from Ben's own understanding.
- The second section of the authorization letter is:
" Luster declare that Draco is the sole Authorize partner for Yes MoCa project"
Translation of the letter: Luster declares that Draco is the only authorized and authorized partner of the Yes Mocha project.
When Ben was asked to clarify the meaning of the sentence, he confirmed that only Draco had the authority to offer Lease products (p. 171, paras. 29-31).