However, from the evidence and on the basis of Efrati's testimony, it can be determined that in real time Shilon did not renegon his undertaking to involve the plaintiff in the planning, otherwise he would not have been required to ask Efrati to do so. It can also be determined that the defendant did not give any importance to the agreements given by it, and did not bother to bring them to the attention of the executing parties. and this is consistent with the defendant's conduct and its breaches of the agreement throughout the period of the agreement.
Testimonies of the defendant's witnesses
- In this context, I will note that the testimony of the defendant's representatives did not leave a reliable impression and I found in them contradictions and inconsistencies that make it difficult to accept the defendant's version: Thus, Efrati testified that it was a "cosmetic renovation" (pp. 38, paras. 4-8), while in real time he wrote that it was a "comprehensive and massive renovation" (Appendix D to the plaintiff's affidavit). He also testified that it was only a month-long renovation (p. 38, s. 21), and it is clear from the parties' correspondence that the renovation lasted until August. Efrati also testified that they removed one tile that constituted a safety hazard, but admitted that in the end they removed the entire ceiling, but still according to him it was only a cosmetic hazard (pp. 39, 6-10). It is clear to everyone that it is not possible to operate a hairdresser, or any business, for a long time, without a ceiling.
- Shilon's testimony was contradictory testimony, which sometimes spilled over into raising his voice. His testimony was characterized by general answers, and although he was asked specific questions, he chose not to give clear answers to the questions he was asked in an attempt to avoid giving a clear answer (see, for example, pp. 55, 34-38; pp. 56, 7-8; pp. 58, 30-36; p. 60, 6-15, and lines 28-30). When asked about the correction of the deficiencies to which they undertook in accordance with clause 9 of the agreement, he replied that one month and ten days is a reasonable time to correct the three deficiencies (p. 61, paras. 19-22). And when asked about the collapse of the tile, he tried to dwarf this event as well: "The ceiling collapsed, the ceiling did not collapse, it is an acoustic tile that we removed and around this event I understand that we want to get out of the agreement... And let's talk about this event once again, about the two cockroaches that were there, about the paint dust and the cosmetic tile that we removed" (pp. 62, 6-11). This was when Efrati admitted that the ceiling was removed afterwards. His testimony also contradicted Efrati's testimony on other substantive points: Thus, when asked why the plaintiff was not informed about the renovation, he replied, "There was no date and it was not a significant renovation, and that is it, and it is possible for us to move forward from this point" (p. 56, paras. 34-35), and this, as stated, in contrast to Efrati's testimony, who testified that the renovation had been planned for two years and that towards the end of March they knew about the timetables for execution (p. 36, paras. 31-33).
- It was evident in their testimony that there was an attempt to minimize and minimize the truth while adapting the truth for the purpose of the proceeding. Shilon testified: "... In the end, the negotiations of this page and a half that she pays 2,000 shekels a month..." (p. 56, paras. 17-19). and this reflects the mindset of the defendant's representatives. In the framework of all its extensive business, it did not attach much importance to the agreement with the plaintiff, and therefore it did not give much importance to the fulfillment of its terms at the time or at all.
- However, even if the defendant is dealing with many branches and branched businesses, even if in the defendant's view it is a marginal and negligible agreement, in the plaintiff's eyes it is her profession and bread. An agreement is an agreement, and commitments must be fulfilled.
Right of Cancellation
- An agreement that was breached by a fundamental breach exists the injured party has the right to cancel it, while restituting the value of the consideration received by each party in respect of the agreement, and he is also entitled to compensation for the breach (section 2 of the Contracts Law (Remedies for Breach of Contract), 5731-1970, hereinafter: "the Contracts Remedies Law"). Insofar as it is a non-fundamental breach, an act or omission contrary to what is agreed upon in the contract, a party who is injured by the breach must give the breach an opportunity to remedy the breach. If this is not corrected within a reasonable time, the injured party may cancel the contract by notifying the breaching party within a reasonable time from the moment the breaching party has been given an opportunity to remedy the breach (sections 6 and 7 of the Contracts and Remedies Law).
- The conduct of the defendant and its representatives from the date of signing the agreement until the date of its cancellation attests to indifference to the plaintiff's interests and to the agreements reached by the parties. The defendant signed a lease agreement with the plaintiff as of the beginning of April, without informing her of the planned renovation. The defendant did not act to correct the deficiencies in the agreement in a timely manner, but only partially and with a delay. The defendant made no effort to expedite the renovation work or to allow the plaintiff to operate the barbershop under reasonable conditions during the renovation. As the evidence shows, the operation of the barbershop during the renovation period encountered many objective difficulties, and the plaintiff's decision not to operate the barbershop when it was surrounded by dust, dirt and noise was a reasonable decision in the circumstances of the case.
- The later agreements were also not fulfilled on time. The defendant's representatives did not see any need to share the plaintiff's plans with the barbershop, to update her on the changes being made, or to consult with respect to the required equipment.
- Even if each violation does not amount to a fundamental violation, the sequence of violations constitutes a fundamental violation. In any event, and as appears from the correspondence of the parties from a real time, the plaintiff did not rush to cancel the agreement, but rather tried to reach understandings that would enable the barbershop's activity in a professional manner, but these attempts were also ignored by the defendant's representatives, who acted unilaterally in accordance with their sole discretion.
- Once a warning was given of the breaches of the agreement and the defendant was given a reasonable time to correct them, and since the breaches were not corrected and the later agreements were not fulfilled, the plaintiff's exercise of the right of cancellation was lawful.
The Question of Compensation