It seems to me that the components that were not claimed in the statement of claim are subject to dismissal.
Even with regard to the alleged damages, in the sum of ILS 100,000, Meitar abandoned this claim in its summaries. After all, in her summaries she did not mention in "Rachel Your Little Daughter" that she sought to substantiate her arguments as they found expression in her opinion. At the same time, I will note, in the margins, that the testimony of the expert on behalf of Meitar was not convincing enough (see in this context the summaries of the Generals' Workshop, paragraphs 45-47).
However, I did see fit to award for maintenance expenses for 9 months, according to the division of liability that I determined. In other words, the Champions' Workshop must bear 50%, i.e., ILS 2,700 .
The Agreed Compensation
- Meitar Shema will rely on the agreed compensation, which is set out in the lease agreement, in clause 24(b) of the lease agreement, which stipulates three months of rent. According to her, the Champions' Workshop violated the lease agreement in a fundamental breach by abandoning the leased property.
The Champions Workshop does not raise a real claim regarding the agreed compensation, which is set out in the lease agreement, nor does it ask for a reduction from the agreed compensation.
- In accordance with the prevailing case law, and in this context see: Civil Appeal 2161/11 David Dror v. Yosef Peretz [published in Nevo]), ruled by the Honorable Justice Y. Amit:
"As stated, the appellants did not petition in their statement of defense that the court would make use of its authority under section 15(a) and order a reduction in the agreed compensation, and, as a rule, a party claiming that there is room to reduce the agreed compensation to raise the argument explicitly in its pleadings (see Civil Appeal 630/84 Bokobza v. Rozolio, IsrSC 39(2) 584 (1985); Civil Appeal 5559/91 K.C. Gas and Energy Enterprises [1982] in Tax Appeal v. Maxima Air Separation Center Ltd., IsrSC 47(2) 642 (1992)).