It was further argued in paragraph 15 of the plaintiffs' attorney's notice of May 7, 2018:
"... Due to the concealment regarding the warehouse and services on the first floor, and the lack of any possibility of obtaining a business license for the café in their absence... All the payments that the plaintiffs are obligated to pay to defendant 1 are frozen, in order to reduce the restitution that defendant 1 will be required to pay... And the agreements will be canceled."
The plaintiffs' monthly royalty debt for the months of April to June 16, 2016 is as follows:
April 16 - ILS 6,062 [Appendix 15 to Yakubov's affidavit]
May 16 - ILS 13,399 [Appendix 15 to Yakubov's affidavit]
Mid-June 16 - ILS 5,504 [Appendix 15 to Yakubov's affidavit]
-------
Total : 24,515 ₪
Therefore, I order plaintiffs 1-2, jointly and severally, to pay defendant 1 for the royalty debt of April 16 - 15.6.16 - ILS 24,515, together with linkage differences and interest in accordance with the law from May 15, 2016 [the date of the half-term] until the actual payment.
- Damage to the reputation of the chain:
Section 75B(b6) claims compensation for damage to goodwill without specifying an estimate of damage. It was claimed that the damage to reputation stemmed from complaints filed by customers, employees and suppliers against Saul, who operated the chain's café in Herzliya.
An expert opinion on behalf of the partnership was not attached in the matter to prove the estimate of the damage.
The claim in this matter has not been proven. The café in Herzliya was the first branch of the Rothschild chain of cafes. Saul was 25 years old and had no experience running a café. By virtue of clause 15A of the franchise agreement, there was a need for increased accompaniment [training, knowledge and experience] of the partnership in the café in Herzliya, and this should have been known to the partnership before signing the franchise agreement with a franchisee with no proven experience.