In other words, the fact that during the exclusivity period no sale agreement was signed that entitles the plaintiff to brokerage fees, has an impact both on the plaintiff's entitlement to brokerage fees from the defendants, and on his entitlement (to the extent that exists) to brokerage fees from the buyers and to the agreed compensation that the plaintiff claims derives from it.
Since I have determined that no sale agreement was signed during the exclusivity period that grants the plaintiff the right to brokerage fees, this means that the defendants did not breach the exclusivity agreement and the plaintiff is not entitled to agreed compensation for the breach of the exclusivity agreement.
It should be noted that the expansion of the magnetic field of exclusivity for the purpose of entitlement of the plaintiff to the brokerage fees does not also require its expansion for the purpose of awarding the agreed compensation. In view of all of the above, I am of the opinion that in any event, where the engagement between the defendants and the buyers (for which the plaintiff is entitled to brokerage fees) was made after the end of the exclusivity period, there is no reason to obligate the defendants with the agreed compensation for the breach of the exclusivity agreement.
- Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for the agreed compensation is rejected.
The Parties' Arguments for the Expansion of the Front
- According to the plaintiff in the summaries, the defendants' claim for a reduction in the agreed compensation by virtue of section 15 of the Contracts Law (Remedies for Breach of Contract) was not argued in the statement of defense and is an improper extension of the front.
In addition, the claim of a discriminatory clause in a standard contract was first raised in the defendants' summaries.
On the other hand, according to the defendants in the summaries, the plaintiffs' entitlement to brokerage fees in respect of the second sale agreement was not claimed in the statement of claim or in the plaintiffs' summaries, and it is an extension of the façade.
- These are quite a few claims. However, the aforementioned issues and the factual basis underlying them arose directly and explicitly during the course of the proceeding, in the pre-trial proceedings and in the evidentiary hearing. Therefore, and since we are dealing with mutual claims - both claims that were not made by the plaintiff in the statement of claim, and claims that were not made by the defendants in the statement of defense - I found that all the arguments should be discussed. This is especially so when the significance of the defendant's claim is that the plaintiff may have had the right to file a new claim in respect of the second sale agreement. When the factual aspect, including that relating to the signing of the second sale agreement (after the filing of the claim), is discussed on its merits in the framework of the proceeding, I do not believe that it would be correct not to decide the dispute as a whole, in a manner that may leave an opening for future litigation between the parties.