The engagement with Kotler was made solely following a representation, which he presented regarding his experience and expertise in dealing with the authorities. The defendant could have contracted directly with lawyers, who specialize in the subject and offered their professional services to the defendant, at a rate similar to that of Adv. Meyuhas, when the proposals or part of them were received by the defendant, even before Kotler's application. However, Kotler presented the defendant with a representation, according to which he had extensive experience and connections with the relevant parties in the Tel Aviv Municipality, so that there would be added value to the professional treatment, which he undertook to carry out himself with the authorities. This is the only reason why the defendant agreed to enter into an agreement with the plaintiff.
According to the plaintiff, her entitlement stems from the fact that Kotler is the "marketer of the idea" and due to the act of "mediation" between the defendant and Adv. Meyuhas. However, these arguments contradict the plain and clear language of the agreement, as well as its purpose. In addition, these claims are baseless, in view of the fact that even before the signing of the agreement, Kotler approached the defendant and offered her the exact same "idea", without any commitment on her part. This proves that the defendant's agreement to pay the plaintiff's salary was given in exchange for Kotler's explicit undertaking to carry out legal proceedings with the authorities himself. It is inconceivable that the defendant volunteered to pay the plaintiff a huge sum for the "idea" that was given to her for free even earlier.
The appendix to the agreement - "Authorization to Handle Municipal Lease Charges/Payments", which was signed in addition to the power of attorney given to Adv. Meyuhas, also testifies that Mr. Kotler undertook to carry out his own handling with the authorities. After all, someone whose entire job is to mediate, such permissions are not given.