The intensity and quantity of the complaints were not proven. No witnesses were invited to testify on the matter on behalf of the partnership. It is not possible to determine that in the short period from August 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015, during which Sol operated the chain's first branch, damage was caused to the reputation of the Rothschild chain of cafes.
The claim regarding goodwill is dismissed in the absence of proof.
- Compensation for failure to submit reports to the partnership from April 16 to June 16, 2016:
Section 75B(b7) of the counterclaim claims compensation in the amount of ILS 50,000 for each month in which no reports were submitted to the Rothschild chain.
In section 10 of the Judgment on the Transfer of Hearing Place, the claim with respect to the non-submission of reports was dismissed for the period after the notice of cancellation of the concession agreement was given - from June 16, 2016 onwards.
The partnership was connected to the café's coffers, and issued Sol accounts for royalty payments based on the data in the café's coffers. During the period of the operation of the café by Sol, we did not find in the evidence that the reporting procedure was meticulous, and that Sol was required to report after they were not given.
The lawsuit regarding non-filing of reports from April 16 to June 16, 2016 is dismissed.
- Compensation for non-payment of advertising fees in the amount of ILS 60,000 - Section 75B(8) of the counterclaim:
The counterclaim relates to the period from April 16 to June 16, 2016. As stated, with respect to the period following the notice of cancellation, from June 16, 2016 onwards, the claim was dismissed [see paragraph 10 of the judgment].
Sol was the chain's first franchisee. Sol was not required to deposit checks for advertising expenses by virtue of clause 40(e) of the concession agreement.
It is not possible to deny Sol's claim that it was told by the partnership, that since they are the first branch of the chain, advertising will not be carried out and it will not be required to finance advertising expenses; and the evidence is that Saul was not required shortly after the signing of the agreements to deposit checks for advertising expenses, despite the provisions of the agreement on the matter.