Did the defendant inform the plaintiff of the planned renovation prior to the signing of the agreement?
- The plaintiff testified that the notice of the renovation of the store was given to her only about two and a half weeks after the beginning of her work (paragraph 12 of the plaintiff's affidavit). She also testified that if she had known about the intention to renovate, she would have started the lease period only after the renovation.
On the other hand, the defendant's witnesses, Shilon and Efrati, testified "to the best of their knowledge" that the employees at the branch knew about the renovation, which was expected to begin in April 2022 (paragraph 24 of Shilon's affidavit; paragraph 18 of Efrati's affidavit).
I found to accept the plaintiff's version, which was reliable and coherent and supported by the evidence and testimonies of the parties.
- Efrati and Shilon testified that "to the best of their knowledge" the branch's employees knew about the renovation. This testimony is not supported by any evidence or testimony of any of the branch's employees. As the evidence indicates, on January 13, 2022, a meeting was held in the presence of the plaintiff, her mother, her attorney and the defendant's representatives - Eran Shilon, Shiri Efrati, the defendant's personnel manager, and Yaron Koris, the defendant's CEO. Tami Dar testified that the defendant's representatives did not raise the possibility of renovating the store as part of the meeting, and this fact is supported by the transcript of the meeting. In the course of the meeting, it emerged that the barbershop was closed during the period when the plaintiff worked there as a result of repeated floods and floods, for which they were forced to carry out sealing work (paragraph 14 of Tami's affidavit; Appendix A to Shilon's affidavit; pp. 11, 11-18). As can be understood from the simple meaning of the words, the sealing work referred to the past period, and it was not explicitly stated in the conversation that this was an additional renovation that would be done in the future. There is no dispute that during the period of the plaintiff's employment as an employee in the branch, there were floods (the plaintiff's testimony, pp. 9, 28-29; this is also evident from Shilon's statement at pp. 20, 12-14; pp. 28, 6-7)). However, the existence of these floods does not necessarily affect the implementation of extensive renovations in the branch.
- Efrati also testified that the renovation plan was indeed prepared two years before the renovation; However, the decision to carry it out was made by the defendant only during the month of March. It was only towards the end of March or the beginning of April that the store manager was updated on the stages of execution and updated his staff (pp. 36, 31-33; pp. 37, 3-7). Hence, the fact of the existence of the renovation became known to the employees of the branch only a short time after the renovation. This fact is reinforced by the correspondence between Efrati and the plaintiff, which indicates that the plaintiff did not know about the renovation until close to the Passover holiday. This correspondence was not contradicted (Appendix D to the plaintiff's affidavit).
- The agreement was signed on March 30, 2022, for the period from April 3, 2022 to April 2, 2023. In other words, Efrati's testimony also indicates that at the time the agreement was signed, the defendant already knew that it was documenting the execution of a renovation. Whether it is a minor renovation or even more so if it is a massive renovation, the existence of a renovation in the environment in which the plaintiff operates the barbershop is information that should have been disclosed to the plaintiff. The defendant was expected not to keep this information with her, but to update the plaintiff regarding the existence of the renovation, so that she could consider her steps, including the date of the start of the lease. The defendant was also expected to anchor the existence of the renovation in the agreement between the parties.
- The defendant did not do so. As it emerges from the correspondence between Efrati and the plaintiff (Appendix D above), according to the defendant, the renovation was not related to the agreement and was not intended to interfere with the barbershop's activity. However, even if the defendant saw things in this way, she should have informed the plaintiff prior to signing the agreement regarding the expected renovations in order to enable her to finance her steps and not to present her to a fait accompli after the agreement was concluded.
- The failure to disclose the planned renovation indicates that the defendant ignored the plaintiff and her interests. Thus, the defendant acted in bad faith during the negotiations.
Did the defendant breach the agreement?