The matter was also brought up, since the case law extended the attorney's duty of care to third parties, who are not the attorney's clients.
Moreover, not every error of judgment amounts to negligence [Civil Appeal 735/75 Roitman v. Aderet, IsrSC 30(3) 75, 82]. In the absence of "warning lights," Adv. Amjad should not be held responsible for the misleading representation presented by Yakubov and Landau.
Eighth, Saul testified in his testimony at p. 334, lines 6-7: "S. Didn't you meet Mona Assi at all? A. No [we did not meet - Y.G.]."
- And from here we will move on to other components of the counterclaim, which were not rejected in paragraph 10 of the judgment.
- Rent debt of Sol to the partnership:
In section 75A(a1) of the counterclaim, the defendant is sued for payment of a rent debt in the amount of ILS 192,100 for the months of June 16 to December 16.
The lease agreement was signed by Sol and Sol. Saul vacated the café on 31 December 2016.
Counsel for the plaintiffs stated on page 12 of the transcript, lines 22-24: "The plaintiffs did not pay rent from June 16 to December 16. The sum of ILS 192,100 for the rent for the period from June 16 to December 16 must be paid to defendant 1."
Therefore, I order plaintiffs 1-2, jointly and severally, to pay defendant 1 for the rent debt - ILS 192,100 linked to the index and bearing interest from September 15, 2016 [the date of the half-term] until the actual payment.
- Damages caused by Sol to the café at the time of the café's evacuation:
Section 75A(a2) claims compensation in the amount of ILS 78,000 for damages allegedly caused by Sol to the ceramics, the electrical system, and the audio system in the café.
The partnership made sure to provide the court with photographs of some of the aforementioned damages. The partnership did not prove the amount of the cost of repairing the damages. An appraiser on its behalf was not asked to estimate the amount of the cost of repairing the aforementioned damages as of the date of the evacuation. No invoices were produced that could be specifically attributed to these damages, as opposed to the renovation carried out by the partnership close to the date of the evacuation.