The judgment for the eviction [Appendix 10 to the statement of defense of defendants 1-2, 4, 6] was given with the consent of Sol, while establishing a qualification that the aforesaid does not constitute an act of court with regard to the parties' claims. The date of the eviction was set by the Magistrate's Court for December 31, 2016.
- Counsel for Sol clarified on page 167 of the minutes of May 20, 2020, lines 21-25:
"I hereby clarify that the plaintiffs' only cause of cancellation [with regard to the franchise agreement and the sale agreement - Y.G.] is the matter of licensing the business... and not other claims."
In paragraphs 5-6 of the notice of May 9, 2016, sent by Sol to the Partnership [Appendix 22 to the Claim], prior to the cancellation of the agreements, it was emphasized in this regard:
"You were well aware that it would not be possible to obtain a business license for the café... This is because parts that were apparently part of the leased property in the past were given to others, while those parts were used as warehouses and services, without which it is not possible to grant a business license to the cafes. Concealing these facts that were known to you... She... constitutes a misrepresentation, and a fundamental violation of the two agreements that were signed - both the franchise agreement and the sale agreement of the café... The misleading representations... They also constitute conducting negotiations in bad faith, and this alone is sufficient to cancel the agreements..."
Paragraph 2 of the cancellation notice sent by Saul on June 16, 2016 [Appendix 24 to the claim] states:
"... I learn from paragraph 17 of your letter [letter from the attorney of the Rothschild Café Partnership - Y.G.] that your client had an agreement to rent... toilets and a warehouse on the floor above the café, which were a condition for granting a business license to the café, and that these agreements were canceled... The warehouse and services were sold to third parties, when all these essential things were not disclosed to my clients, and even worse, were hidden from them."
- After the cancellation of the agreement, Sol and Sol filed a claim for the return of the funds as follows:
- Reimbursement of ILS 1,186,000, paid by Sol as consideration in the concession and sale agreements - clause 67.1 of the claim.
- Reimbursement of ILS 103,400 paid by Sol for brokerage services and legal services in drafting the concession contract and the sales contract - section 67.2 of the lawsuit.
- Reimbursement of ILS 80,000 for the renovation carried out by Sol in the café in Herzliya - section 67.3 of the claim.
In addition, Sol and Sol claimed the sum of ILS 2.5 million + from a tax appeal for loss of profits from the date of eviction until September 30, 2020 [the end of the contractual lease period of the café] - section 67.4 of the claim.