According to the plaintiff, the defendants did not refer the buyers to him, signed the sale agreement without involving him and without informing him of the negotiations that were taking place between them and the buyers, and thus violated the exclusivity agreement. Therefore, in addition to the brokerage fees, he is also entitled to the agreed compensation at the rate of 2% plus VAT.
According to the plaintiff, the referral mechanism is the core of the exclusivity agreement. Without it, there is no exclusivity. In other words, according to him, the meaning of exclusivity is the defendants' undertaking to refer any potential buyer to him, so that he can also enter into a brokerage agreement with the buyer and receive brokerage fees from him.
Copied from Nevo
According to the plaintiff, the defendants' claim that the agreed compensation should be reduced was not argued in the statement of defense and constitutes an extension of the façade.
According to the plaintiff, he is also entitled to compensation in the amount of ILS 50,000 for the damage to his good name and reputation.
- According to the defendants, the plaintiff did not prove that he had a valid brokerage license, and for this reason the lawsuit should be dismissed.
According to the defendants, the plaintiff is not entitled to brokerage fees in respect of the first sale agreement, since it was conditional on a terminating condition, which was fulfilled.
In addition, it was agreed between the parties that the plaintiff would be entitled to brokerage fees on condition that the buyer paid the defendants at least ILS 2,000,000. However, the buyer did not pay the defendants ILS 2,000,000 since the agreement was terminated after the sum of only ILS 1,500,000 had been paid (which was returned in accordance with the provisions of the sale agreement).
According to the defendants, the plaintiff was not the effective factor in the transaction, and the presumption of exclusivity was concealed. This is because the buyers contacted the defendants independently before any marketing actions were carried out by the plaintiff.