A review of the lease agreement shows that the purpose of the leased property is "for the purpose of a motorcycle garage" (section 9(a) of the lease agreement (Appendix 1 to Levy's affidavit) and see also Meitar's response (Appendix 9), ibid.).
Moreover, even if the Champions' Workshop could not fully operate the leased property during the COVID-19 period, in light of the emergency regulations, it would have been able to make use of the leased property, even if partially (see: Anavi's testimony, p. 38 of the transcript, lines 9-30).
Moreover, the Champions' Workshop was entitled to receive compensation from the state. Levy was asked about this, and he replied that to the best of his recollection he had submitted applications for COVID-19 grants, but did not remember to say whether he had received grants and for what period (p. 20 of the transcript, lines 28-32 and also page 21, lines 5-7 and lines 26-27).
It should be noted that the lack of knowledge about the grant is puzzling, since this is a material figure, which should have been known, and it is easy to check it by simple and reasonable means.
It should also be noted that granting the right to request compensation from the state teaches: "that the state has chosen to view the tenant as someone who has been harmed by the coronavirus, and the compensation is given, inter alia, in order to pay the landlord the rent" (see: Civil Appeal (B.Y.) 44347-09-20 Tzavta and Advanced Culture in Tax Appeal (Halatz) v. Hamkat Film in Tax Appeal [published in Nevo]).
It should be emphasized that the case law ruled in the La Rhine case that a tenant who received compensation from the state during the COVID-19 period will not be able to claim to thwart the agreement; that is, the provision of assistance from the state to businesses that were harmed as aforesaid, negates the crisis as one that enters the scope of contractual thwarting; see and compare, to other judgments that reiterated this determination, and will be brought in section 63.
- The third condition is the preclude clause, which the violator could not have prevented the circumstances under which the agreement was thwarted. As stated, the Champions' Workshop did not find itself in a situation where it could not make any use of the leased property, but rather it chose to leave the leased property and open an alternative business in Binyamina Levy confirmed this in his testimony, according to which at a certain point, the Champions' Workshop sought to resume its activity; It should be noted that he did not remember the date on which the agreement was signed there, and the fact that this material figure is not known raises a question (p. 20 of the minutes, lines 8-12; and especially p. 20, line 9; See also Appendix 8 to the defendant's affidavit).
- The sum of the matter, in light of the aforesaid, is the law of the claim of thwarting - rejection.
Between me and me, even if, according to the Champions' Workshop, Meitar presented a tough position, this does not establish the right to cancel the agreement and refrain from paying the rent.