The plaintiff's arguments
- According to the plaintiff, the sublease agreement was lawfully cancelled by the plaintiff in light of the defendant's fundamental breaches of the agreement:
- The defendant breached its duties of good faith under section 12 of the Contracts (General Part) Law (hereinafter: "the Contracts Law") by not informing the plaintiff prior to the signing of the agreement about the planned renovation.
- The defendant breached the agreement with respect to the leased property and its equipment and systematically violated every date agreed upon by the parties.
- The defendant breached the agreements reached by the parties after the plaintiff's warning letter, and acted to establish a new hairdressing salon that was not in accordance with the parties' agreements and without the elements required to perform professional work at the level of quality required by the plaintiff.
- Although the defendant did not provide the barbershop in accordance with the parties' agreements, it continued to collect the rent even for the periods when the barbershop did not operate. Therefore, the notice of cancellation of the agreement and the cancellation of the rent checks from November onwards was made by law.
- Therefore, as part of her lawsuit, the plaintiff petitions for the cancellation of the agreement and the cancellation of all the agreements reached by the parties, and to order that the checks for the payment of the rent from November 2022 were lawfully canceled. In addition, the plaintiff petitions for indemnification for the payment of the rent for the period between May 18, 2022 and the end of October 2022, in the total sum of ILS 12,870; for compensation for loss of income withheld from the plaintiff due to the lack of a suitable and suitable barbershop for treating dogs in the period between the middle of May 2022 and November 2022, in the total amount of ILS 90,000. The petitioner also petitions for compensation for the mental anguish caused to her, which she imposed on the sum of ILS 10,000 and the payment of the expenses she incurred in connection with the proceeding.
The defendant's arguments
- According to the defendant, it was the plaintiff who breached the agreement. According to her, the defendant invested an enormous amount of resources - financial and time resources - in order to satisfy the plaintiff, but the defendant did not report to work and wasted the defendant's many investments.
- According to the defendant, the plaintiff raised many baseless and baseless demands in connection with the alleged defects in the barbershop, both in the old barbershop and in the new barbershop. The defendant repaired the vent, the air conditioner pipe and the old water pipe and there is no problem in operating the faucet and water pipe. In addition, the defendant built a completely new barbershop with modern and proper equipment that is still used by the current barbershop operator to this day.
- Therefore, according to the defendant, the plaintiff cancelled the agreement unlawfully, without notice as required by the agreement, and while canceling the checks that were given illegally.
- With regard to the sums claimed, the defendant claims that these are excessive sums and are not anchored in real data. The plaintiff was absent from work for about a month due to illness and also secretly and privately told dogs in her home or clients' homes.
- The defendant further claims that the plaintiff stole from her her customers, who constitute her intellectual property, while damaging the defendant's reputation and in breach of her obligation to perform her work only in the hairdresser and to refer her customers to the store. Therefore, the defendant argues that the sum of ILS 388,680 should be deducted from the amount of the claim due to the theft of the defendant's list of customers and damage to its reputation.
- In light of the defendant's claims of unlawful breach of the agreement, the defendant submitted the balance of the checks that were given to her for the remainder of the lease period for execution at the Execution Office in the framework of the execution file No. 532835-06-23.
In accordance with the parties' agreements, the objection to the execution of the notes filed by the plaintiff in the framework of an objection to the execution of the deed 46705-09-23 [Nevo] was accepted and the case was consolidated together with the prosecution in this proceeding (see decision of November 14, 2023).