As for the dispute on its merits, according to the laws of evidence, it is not possible to present evidence that is not related to the witness.
However, it is sufficient for me that from the witness's own statements it appears that he only heard from Mr. Appel regarding the delays. Needless to say, the witness before me was certainly not involved in the plans.
In the margins, I will note that from Appendix D to the affidavit of the witness Braunstein (clerical error: it should be: Steindem's affidavit. Y.P. (a letter from Dior Adar dated May 14, 2018) indicates that it was indeed agreed to submit a corrective plan, but at the same time, the plaintiff emphasizes that the date of delivery of the stores has long passed, in a manner that claims an apparent severance of the connection between the amendment of the plan and the date of delivery of the stores.
Therefore, and in view of all that has been compiled, I do not permit the submission of the minutes of the hearing and I order its return." (The emphases here and below are mine. 18).
However, in the framework of the hearing paragraph of March 4, 2024 (p. 9, paras. 3-5), I have already permitted in principle the submission of the minutes of the hearing in the parallel proceeding, subject to the approval of counsel for both parties. I also permitted the presentation of questions arising from this transcript to Mr. Netanel. Indeed, on May 30, 2024, the plaintiff's counsel petitioned to attach the minutes of the hearing in the parallel proceeding, and on that day my decision was given according to which the position of the other party's counsel would be given. In the absence of a response from the defendant's counsel, on June 9, 2024, I allowed the attachment of the minutes of the hearing in the parallel proceeding.
Discussion and Decision
- I will preface the beginning and determine that the claim should be accepted, albeit in different values from those that the plaintiff petitions for, both in her claim and in her summaries. First of all, I will clarify my approach in the judgment before us: we are in fact dealing with a claim of breach of an agreement regarding the date of delivery of possession of the store. The agreement and the date stated therein are unambiguous. However, the defendant has various arguments regarding the circumstances of the deviation from the date specified in the agreement, including: the consent of the rights holders in the plaintiff, Mr. Appel, to the delays; the plaintiff's signature on the delivery protocol, in which he waived all of the plaintiff's claims; failure to comply with the full payments specified in the agreement; and delays resulting from the lack of approval by fire and rescue services. It was also argued in the summaries that the calculation of the compensation was incorrect. We will deal with all of these as we move on. Moving on to the discussion of the parties' arguments and a review of their versions, I will turn to examine what is stated in the agreement and the relevant terms for the disputes that are the subject of our discussion.
The Sale Agreement
- As stated above, on July 21, 2015, the parties entered into an agreement, in which the plaintiff sold the store to the defendant.
In the seventh "because" in the preamble to the agreement, the property is defined as follows: