Civil Case (Jerusalem) 39650-10-22 Reut Mizrahi v. Image Advanced Systems, Signage and Awnings Ltd.

A claim for monetary compensation for breach of agreement.

The Parties and the Framework of the Dispute

1. Defendant 1 is a company engaged in the installation of signage and awnings. Defendant 3 is the shareholder of the company/defendant 1, and defendant 2 is her spouse who works for the company and manages all of its 'field' activities.
2. In June 2021, the plaintiffs ordered from defendant 1, through defendant 2, an electric pergola for the balcony of their apartment, custom-ordered from a Spanish manufacturer and in accordance with the dimensions of the balcony.
3. The pergola was not supplied despite repeated promises, and after lengthy negotiations between the parties, the plaintiffs filed this claim for cancellation of the agreement, the return of the advance they had paid and compensation for the damages caused to them due to the aforementioned non-supply.
4. The parties disagree on the question of what were the terms of the agreement between them, why the pergola was not supplied and whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a refund of their money and compensation for their alleged damages.

The Agreement between the Parties

5. The parties met at the plaintiffs' home on June 9, 2021 and agreed to order a custom-made pergola, and on June 11, 2021, the plaintiffs transferred an advance of ILS 35,000 to defendant 1's account.
6. According to the plaintiffs, the cost of the pergola was set at ILS 75,000 and defendant 2 promised to supply it within 3 months. In support of their version of the agreed price, the plaintiffs refer to correspondence in which both parties refer to the fact that "half" of the payment was paid, but according to the defendant, this is a style of expression, where "half" is "part" (p.  18, 3-5).
7. According to the defendant, the agreed price is ILS 99,750 plus a tax appeal, according to a document he presented in the file, which was defined as the "price quote" dated June 9, 2021, and does not bear the plaintiffs' signature.

The plaintiffs denied the aforementioned document and claimed that they had seen it for the first time in the legal proceedings.  The plaintiffs also referred to the correspondence dated September 15, 2022, in which the plaintiff wrote to the defendant that she regretted that she did not enter into a contract with him at the time of payment of the advance.  In other words, in real time, the parties did not refer to the written contract.

8. In his testimony, the defendant claimed for the first time that he does not sign the price quote but sends it to them on WhatsApp and they approve. He claimed that he was unable to present the correspondence because his phone was broken and he was only able to recover the correspondence with the plaintiff but not with the plaintiff (pp.  17 14-22).

It is difficult to trust this new version, especially when in fact the defendant attached the correspondence with the two plaintiffs to his affidavit, but only from April 2022 onwards.