Civil Case (Tel Aviv) 43510-07-22 Guy Binder vs. Daniel Shmuel Elmaliah - part 8

As to the plaintiffs' claim that the court in Israel is the proper forum to hear the claim, by virtue of the provisions of Regulation 166 of the Regulations, the defendants are of the opinion that this claim is unfounded.  Thus, with regard to Regulation 166(4) of the Regulations , the defendants refer to the fact that the plaintiffs did not claim at all that there was a signed and written contract between the parties, but only an oral contract.  Specifically, the plaintiffs did not even specify in their statement of claim what was the oral contract that was entered into between them and the defendants, what its terms were, and what was stipulated in its framework.  Moreover, the letter of claim also indicates that all the commitments were supposed to take place abroad, and not in Israel.  In addition, it was not claimed or even proven that it was agreed between the parties that the laws of the State of Israel would apply to the oral contract; As to Regulation 166(5) - it is argued that it is also not relevant to our case.  This is not a claim for a product, service or behavior of the defendants, but rather a joint venture, in which the plaintiffs were a significant part in its creation and operation (to the extent that they saw themselves as employees, as stated in the original statement of claim).  In this context, it was argued that there is no comparison between the present case and lawsuits against large international corporations such as Booking, which offer tourism or other services to their customers around the world, since the present case is not similar to this; It was further argued that Regulation 166(9) of the Regulations is also irrelevant to our case, since this is not a situation described in the Regulation, in which there is another defendant over whom the court has jurisdiction, whereas the defendant is the "required or correct" litigant involved in a lawsuit that was properly filed against that other defendant due to his connection to another defendant, in respect of whom there is no problem of jurisdiction.