An examination of the summaries shows that they raised a complaint according to which the defendants did not explain about "the lack of a practical possibility of replacing Inbal Or as the manager of the group" (paragraph 37(c) of the summaries). But how did this possibility cause the damage?
In this regard, Mr. David Reznik (plaintiff 34) referred to an email that was sent, inter alia, to Adv. Aharonson on August 30, 2014 (Appendix 7 to his affidavit), in which he asked whether it was possible to disconnect from Ms. Or. He went on to testify that Adv. Nof replied that at this stage he did not represent Ms. Or, but in light of the contractual provision, she could not be removed from her position. However, no reference was attached to support this claim.
The defendants, for their part, attached the minutes of the meeting of the Jabotinsky Project Committee 104 of January 12, 2015 (Appendix 58 to their affidavit). At that meeting, the possibility arose that the two committees would hold a meeting to discuss Ms . Or's dismissal, but it was not reported what followed this discussion.
- In any case, some of the members of the group, as we have seen, contacted Ms. Or in November 2015 demanding that she be replaced. They were accompanied by highly professional legal advice, and the demand was presented despite the existence of the said contractual stipulation. Hence, it does not appear that the petitioners of the letter saw it as binding. It is not yet clear why no further steps were taken before it. It is possible that the group committee was not interested in this and an attempt was made to give an opportunity to advance the planning proceedings at that time. And chances are thata new team organizer, if his arrival was possible, would also give an opportunity for joint action for the two courts, as this should guarantee a much higher return.
It is therefore not clear whether there is a causal connection between the clause in the agreement and the damages that occurred. In addition, it is possible that the attempt to replace a group organizer would have found itself in the courts, and in the meantime the Or Group would have entered the conference.
- All of these raise more questions than answers, and the plaintiffs have not established entitlement to monetary relief in respect of this matter.
The claim that the defendants refrained from depositing the deposit in trust in contravention of the letter of undertaking
- According to the plaintiffs in their summaries, the defendants breached their undertaking to deposit in the trust, in accordance with the letter of undertaking, a deposit of 10% of the total estimate of the cost of the construction component and the accompanying components set out in the joining form.
As may be recalled, the letter of undertaking stated an estimate of the construction costs, as well as the compensation for the delay in the delivery of the apartments. Against the background of these undertakings, clause 4 of the letter of undertaking states that for the purpose of ensuring them, they will be transferred "to the group's attorney, or to a trustee appointed by the bank financing the project, to the extent that [...] a total of 10% of the total cost estimate of the construction component and the accompanying component set out in the joining form [...]. The deposit amount will be transferred by us, only after payment of the full estimate of the land component and the marketing fee, as defined in the joining form, by all the members of the group in full. The deposit will remain with the trustee, until an agreement is signed with the executing contractor."