Only from the statement of claim did the defendant learn for the first time that the payment to the plaintiff was intended only as brokerage fees and not for dealing with the authorities. This is a deception that entitles the defendant to cancel the agreement.
The defendant's second claim related to the fact that in practice she suffered a loss and not savings.
If the defendant had paid the municipality the original payment demand as it is, the defendant would have paid a much lower lease than the amounts actually paid by it, after conducting a legal proceeding for 10 years. Without conducting any legal proceedings, the defendant would have paid the municipality ILS 8.6 million. Had she received professional advice, the defendant would have paid the municipality, after a legal proceeding, approximately ILS 6 million, for 49 years of lease and without switching between tracks.
In practice, and due to the lack of professional advice, and after a legal proceeding, the defendant paid the municipality antitrust ILS 11.4 million. The lack of treatment on the part of the plaintiff led to the defendant making the mistake of choosing a 7-year lease track, which would have meant that the lease fee was reduced by only 8.2% and in business restrictions ILS 758,314, an amount that was absorbed by the loss caused to the defendant. If the plaintiff had provided the defendant with professional care, it would have been possible to choose the track of 49 years of lease in the first place, then the savings would have reached approximately ILS 2.37 million, without incurring losses due to the need to pay for additional periods. In practice, the defendant did not receive any benefits, since in practice she suffered a huge loss, due to the incorrect transition between the tracks.
Alternatively , if the plaintiff is entitled to wages, the correct rate is only ILS 41,873. This sum derives from a rate of 7.5%, derived from the amount of savings to the plaintiff, ILS 758,314, in a 7-year track, after deducting expenses in the form of payment of expert opinions and payment to the mediator. According to the language of the agreement, the plaintiff is entitled to a percentage of the savings that will be achieved for the "additional lease period", i.e., only one period. The calculation made by the plaintiff is incorrect, inter alia, because it is based on alleged savings, which originated from a combination of three lease extension periods.