The Defense's Arguments
The defendant's defense focused on two main arguments:
First, the plaintiff did not fulfill her part in the agreement and therefore her entitlement to the commission was not consolidated.
The language of the agreement states that in order for the plaintiff to be entitled to the commission, she had to perform two things: first, "dealing with the municipality of a civil case and the authorities in general regarding the reduction of lease fees." This undertaking appears already in the preamble to the agreement and again in clause 1. In order to carry out this undertaking, the plaintiff even signed the defendant a "letter of authorization" authorizing it to carry out actions in the municipality. Second, in accordance with clause 4B of the agreement, the plaintiff undertook to fund out of pocket the cost of the expert opinions that would be required for the purpose of managing the case. It should be noted that the "file" was defined in the introduction to the agreement as "dealing with the Tel Aviv Municipality and the authorities in general regarding the reduction of lease fees from the municipality, municipal taxation and any issue that will be raised during negotiations with the municipality in connection with this agreement and related to the property."
The plaintiff neglected and breached both of the aforementioned obligations. The plaintiff did not carry out any treatment with the authorities and did not fund the expert opinions, and in fact, immediately after the signing of the agreement, the plaintiff disappeared for 10 years. The plaintiff did not detail in her statement of claim even a single treatment action that she performed, and even today she does not have elementary factual details about the lease period.
According to the terms of the agreement, which the plaintiff herself drafted, the fulfillment of her obligations was a condition for her entitlement to any wage. The defendant's conduct and the fact that she disappeared for 10 years attest to her abandonment of the agreement. In such a situation, the defendant is not obligated to send a notice of cancellation of the contract.