Caselaw

Civil Case (Tel Aviv) 13203-10-16 Sol.E Investments & Entrepreneurship Group Ltd. v. Landau Reznieli Cafe Chain - part 20

January 7, 2025
Print

Expenses of brokerage fees in a café transaction in Herzliya:

3] Invoice 10117 -   ILS 29,400 [Appendix 26 to Sol's affidavit], check date August 30, 2015

4] Invoice - 10124   ILS 15,000 [Appendix 26 to Sol's affidavit], check date September 16, 2015

5] Invoice 10139 -   ILS 15,000 [Appendix 26 to Sol's affidavit], check date September 30, 2015

6] Invoice 10160 -   ILS 905 [Appendix 26 to Sol's affidavit], check date 24.11.15

7] Invoice 10170 -   ILS 7,000 [Appendix 26 to Sol's affidavit], check date 14.12.15

8] Invoice 10175 - ILS 7,000 [Appendix 26 to Sol's affidavit], check date 28.12.15

9] Invoice 10180 - ILS 10,000 [Appendix 26 to Sol's affidavit], check date 3.1.16

10] Invoice 10182 - ILS 5,000 [Appendix 26 to Sol's affidavit], check date 13.1.16

Regarding the brokerage services, a fee agreement was signed - Appendix 10 to Sol's affidavit.  Adv. Amjad stated in paragraphs 60.6-60.13 of his affidavit that invoices 3-10 were paid for brokerage fees in the café transaction in Herzliya.

  1. Sol & Sol's claim in relation to a refund of ILS 80,000 for renovation carried out by Sol in the café bar [section 67.3 of the claim] - rejected:

First, in section 11b.  The franchise agreement [Appendix 17 to the claim] states: "The franchisee, for its part, undertakes not to make any change in the structure of the branch, internal and/or external, not to add or detract, neither by himself nor through any other party, except after receiving prior written approval from the Rothschild chain."

Saul did the renovation of the café bar without the partner's approval. 

The partnership did not give written approval for the renovation of the bar in the café

The Partnership's CEO, Mr. Dorian Kopit, stated in paragraph 9 of his affidavit, which was not concealed:

"The branch that was given to him [by Sol-Y.G.] by the chain was a new branch that met all the required needs...  The renovation expenses [above] are an unnecessary expense, which was not needed."

Second, the partnership did not benefit from the renovation of the café's bar.  After Saul vacated the café at 16th Street, the partnership between 17 renovated the café to build a warehouse and services [a condition for obtaining a license to run the café], and the location of the bar was renovated

Previous part1...1920
21...39Next part