The defendant also submitted an opinion on behalf of Adv. Lior Hebron, which was intended to examine whether the legal proceeding created for the defendant savings in the lease fees and if so, what was its rate. As a follow-up question, Adv. Hebron was asked to examine the interest rate that should be applied, if any, on the principal. (Hereinafter: "Adv. Hebron").
After the parties submitted their evidence, the plaintiff filed a motion to submit additional evidence, by means of a supplementary affidavit, as well as to add two witnesses to the list of witnesses - Adv. Meyuhas and Adv. Eidelman, who worked at the Meyuhas law firm. The plaintiff argued that the additional documents did not change her claims, but rather to support them. After taking into account all the considerations and in order to enable the plaintiff to exhaust her evidence, I decided to allow the submission of additional evidence and the hearing of Adv. Eidelman, while charging the plaintiff with the expenses arising from the extension of the proceeding and allowing the defendant to submit additional evidence on her part, if necessary (see decision of August 22, 2024).
Later, the testimonies of the parties were heard - the plaintiff also testified with Adv. Uri Shemesh, who worked for a period of time in the Meyuhas law firm and the parties submitted their written summaries.
Discussion and Decision
As determined in case law, when a professional provides professional service to another, he may have the right to pay wages for his work from two different normative sources: contract law or enrichment law, rather than in law. In the contractual case, this refers to an agreed wage; In a case based on the laws of enrichment and not in law, it is a matter of the right to proper wages. (Civil Appeal 6290/18 Estate of the late Tamira Pinchuk v. First International Bank of Israel in Tax Appeal [Nevo] (May 2, 2021), (hereinafter: "the Pinchuk Judgment"), para. 40).
The Supreme Court clarified that there are cases in which, even if there is a contract between the parties, to the extent that its provisions do not explicitly or implicitly negate rights by virtue of the laws of enrichment, there is no impediment to relying on the laws of enrichment despite the existence of an agreement between the parties. In these cases, to the extent that the service provider has not been able to prove the existence of a contractual obligation, the service provider's path is not blocked from establishing a claim of liability, on the basis of the laws of enrichment and not in law. (Civil Appeal Authority 515/24 Triangle Parking Lot, Management and Maintenance in a Tax Appeal v. Amot Investments in a Tax Appeal [Nevo] (August 19, 2024), para. 23); For details of the cases, see the Pinchuk Judgment, paragraph 42 of the judgment of the Honorable Justice Grosskopf).