..................................................................................................................
"So you can't come and say, 'I didn't cancel.' As far as you're concerned, the deal has been canceled. As soon as the deal is canceled, be respectful, file a claim for all the damage caused to you, and don't fill in whatever you want with a check."
..................................................................................................................
"The Court (the Honorable Judge Ravid):
But again, the term "cooperation" is not clear to me, and how it gives you (the right) to fill the checks with the goods in your hands; you cancel the transaction. After all, you paid Abu Razek, I suppose, for the goods. Stay with the goods. How can you fill a check? You can sue for damages for the basic deal."
..................................................................................................................
The Court:
We have read all the material. You can see that we also controlled the sections. And the conclusion that we reached, even after we heard the arguments, is that in the end, if the respondent gave the appellant checks without coverage, and they returned, for a transaction that was based on those checks, and at the end of the day these transactions were canceled, and we see from the affidavits that we saw that the cancellation was not only towards VAT, a kind of partial cancellation or temporary cancellation or suspension and the like, Rather, it was clear to the appellant that she was going for the cancellation - we do not think that she can act to collect the checks. and put all the damage done to her inside. Both direct damage and treatment of Google, and all the damages caused to it. A basic deal - that's fine. We know that you have filed a lawsuit. And as much as there are other parts you want to claim, you can fix it. Conduct the process in the civil lawsuit. We will not intervene in the judgment.
Counsel for the appellant: