In other words, the defendant must notify the date of delivery of possession, and the plaintiff must complete the payment of the consideration 7 days prior to the date of delivery of the aforementioned possession. It is clear that the plaintiff cannot pay the balance of the consideration beyond the date of delivery of possession that he did not notify her, if it was indeed not notified to her.
The plaintiff's evidence
Ms. Appel's testimony
- Appel, Mr. Appel's daughter, handled the agreement and the transaction in question, even though she has no official status in the plaintiff company (p. 2, paras. 2-3 of the hearing of January 1, 2024). All the quotes from Ms. Appel's words in her interrogation are from the aforementioned paragraph), except that she serves as the director of the A.P.C. housing complex (ibid., para. 6). However, Ms. Appel clarifies that she assisted in the management of the transaction in question to her father, who is one of the plaintiff's shareholders (ibid., p. 3, paras. 28-30). In this context, Ms. Appel notes that her father, Mr. Appel, was ill with cancer at the relevant time, and was disabled from handling the business of the two companies (ibid., paras. 36-37). She further notes that she was personally in contact with Mr. Netanel in relation to the transaction (p. 4, paras. 19-20). Ms. Appel also clarifies that she was personally aware of the plaintiff's claims against the defendant, including in the correspondence and e-mails sent on the matter (p. 4, paras. 33-34), and she even personally discussed the matter with Mr. Netanel, alongside her father (p. 6, paras. 16-22). In the margins of this section, I will note that the versions of the defendant's witnesses also indicate that the actual conduct was with Mrs. Appel, even though Mr. Appel's name was mixed with by Mr. Netanel, as evidence of the latter's consent to the delay in delivery.
- Appel filed an affidavit on the matter, which strengthens the plaintiff's claims regarding the store's failure to deliver on time. To the affidavit, Ms. Appel attached photos from the store and stores of Dior A.P.Z., which she photographed herself on various occasions, between July 2018 and July 2019 (see paragraph 11 of the affidavit and see the photos in Appendix B to the affidavit). It should be said at this point that it appears from the photographs, which were taken in real time, that the defendant did indeed make use of the store until the date of the actual delivery of the store. A transcript of a conversation between the parties dated August 27, 2019, was also attached (as part of Appendix A to Ms. Appel's affidavit). On behalf of the plaintiff, Ms. Appel herself and Adv. Eti Mosko participated in this meeting, while on behalf of the defendant Mr. Netanel and Adv. Braunstein participated (hereinafter: the transcript and the meeting, respectively).
- Appel notes in her cross-examination that at the time of the delivery of possession of the store, Mr. Netanel demanded that one of his employees, known as Kiko, vacate the store (p. 7, paras. 28-29). See also at p. 11, para. 13. This also arises from the transcript). She further notes that the defendant's representatives demanded that she leave the store on the date of her visit to the store, an event that occurred after the delivery date stipulated in the agreement and proceeds to the meeting (p. 8, paras. 34-39).
- After examining the testimony given by the witness, it emerges that this is reliable, coherent, transparent, clear testimony and is backed by relevant evidence. The witness gave her testimony consistently and without contradictions. Her answers were direct, clear and complete, while demonstrating proficiency in the details of the case. I was also impressed by Ms. Appel's orderly testimony (from p. 13, s. 7 to p. 14, s. 6) that the negotiations conducted on behalf of the plaintiff with potential tenants did indeed fail due to the lack of a future date for occupancy of the property.
The Defendant's Evidence