Therefore, the defendants' argument that the plaintiff is not entitled to brokerage fees in respect of the second sale agreement because the amount of consideration determined therein is less than ILS 11,000,000, is rejected.
- The defendants further claim that the plaintiff did not present a brokerage license and did not prove that he holds a valid license, and this is sufficient to bring about the dismissal of the claim. The claim was made explicitly only in the summaries.
The plaintiff claimed in the statement of claim and declared in his affidavit of his main testimony that he was "a licensed real estate broker with license number 3008019". The plaintiff's license number is also listed on the exclusivity agreement.
The plaintiff was interrogated on this matter in his cross-examination and replied: "I have been a realtor for 27 years, there is a license, there is no dispute about it, I did not find it appropriate (to attach a copy of the license to the affidavit - A.H.), I am sure that you checked and saw that I have a valid license." The plaintiff's testimony on this matter was honest and I trust it.
Given the plaintiff's testimony that was not contradicted, the fact that the claim was explicitly raised by the defendants only in the summaries, and since this is a simple check that can be done in the Ministry of Justice's database of realtors, I do not accept the argument.
- The defendants further claim that the plaintiff did not prove that he had carried out marketing activities of the property prior to the date on which the buyers approached the defendants, and therefore the plaintiff did not meet the conditions set forth in section 14(b) of the Realtors Law, and the presumption of exclusivity did not arise. According to the defendants, the relationship between the defendants and the buyers was created a few days after the exclusivity agreement was signed, and there was not even a slight evidence of marketing activity carried out by the plaintiff up to that date.
0I do not accept the claim.