However, in the circumstances of this case, it was not proven that the conditions for the application of this provision were met, since the engagement was made in a face-to-face meeting. In any event, even if the provision of section 14c(c) had applied, there is no dispute that the request for cancellation was raised only after about 6.5 months, and in any case outside the time period prescribed by law, and in any event, even in the telephone conversation made in July 2020, the transcript of which was submitted to the file by the recipient of the notice, it was not stated by the defendant that he tried to contact the course and there was no response.
- In these circumstances, and since it has not been proven that a valid cancellation notice was given on the relevant dates, and since I have not been presented with sufficient evidentiary basis to substantiate the defendant's claims regarding bad faith conduct on the part of the College or the existence of a material failure of consideration, I do not find grounds for canceling the engagement retroactively.
- Moreover, I do not find any reason in law to grant the defendant's request to suspend the statute of limitations.
Conclusion
- The claim against the defendant is dismissed.
- The claim against the recipient of the notice is accepted.
- The recipient of the notice will pay the plaintiff the amount of the debt in the Writ of Execution file No. 523229-02-21 and will also bear the plaintiff's expenses and attorney's fees in the sum of ILS 3,500.
- You will also bear the defendant's expenses in the sum of ILS 3,500 from the receipt of the notice.
- The amount of the judgment will be paid within 30 days from the date of receipt of the judgment, otherwise the amount will bear shekel interest from the date of the judgment until the date of actual payment.
- The right to appeal by law.
- The Secretariat will send this judgment to the parties.
Given today, August 07, 2025, in the absence of the parties.
Reut Ziv