Civil Case (Nazareth) 42488-07-20 Y.A. Alon Construction Ltd. v. Milad Rahal - part 3

Breach of the Agreement by Y.A.  Oak

61. M.Z. She claimed that she left the work site after the January 2020 bill was not paid to her, in the sum of ILS 320, 000, even though it was approved by Nahmias at the beginning of February 2020.
62. She also claimed that Y.A. Alon acted in bad faith when she asked her to split the invoice she submitted in the sum of ILS 320, 000 in accordance with the approved account, promising that she intended to pay part of the account in cash and the other part "current + 30" in accordance with the agreement. In retrospect, it became clear to R.M.Z.  that this was an artificial split, when only ILS 150, 000 was paid to her (by a postponed check and not in cash), and an account balance of ILS 170, 000 remained.
63. A. Alon claimed in her pleadings and affidavits that R.M.Z.'s claims regarding the January 2020 unpaid account are baseless (see, for example, paragraph 17 of Eyal's affidavit). Whereas in his cross-examination, Eyal admitted that he had approved the January 2020 account in the sum of ILS 320, 000, and that the signature that appears on this account next to Nahmias' s signature is his signature (Appendix 11 to Milad's affidavit( (p.  80, paras.  2-5).
64. It should be noted that apart from an approved account for January 2020, no approved accounts of the rest of the months of work in the project were presented, due to the procedure at Y.A. Alon according to which a copy of approved accounts is not transferred to the subcontractor. Rami testified that Y.A.  Alon did not know that R.M.Z.  A copy of the account confirmation for the month of January 2020, and therefore she tried to evade the payment and claimed that the amount due to R.M.Z.  for the works for the month of January 2020 was only ILS 150, 000 (p.  44, paras.  7-9).  I find support for this in Y.A.'s response letter.  Alon to R.M.Z.'s announcement of the termination of work at the site, in which Y.A.  denied Alon submitted an approved account in the amount of ILS 320, 000 for the January 2020 work, and claimed that the sum of ILS 170, 000 relates to the work for the month of February 2020 (Appendix C to Yitzhak's affidavit).
65. As indicated by the bookkeeping card attached by Y.A. Alon (Appendix 11 to Yitzhak's affidavit), indeed on the account for the month of 01/2020, a total of only ILS 150, 000 was paid (plus VAT - ILS 175, 500), which constitute a partial account.
66. The invoices for the account for the month of 01/2020 were submitted by R.M.Z. on February 16, 2020 (see Appendices 12 and 13 to Milad's affidavit). Subsequently, on February 17, 2020, a document "Summary of the Delivery Schedule and Payment Schedule" (Appendix 14 to Milad's affidavit( was prepared by Eyal, as he confirmed in his testimony as stated above, in which he stated, inter alia, that the sum of ILS 170, 000 would be paid on March 5, 2020, a document that S.M.Z.  refused to sign.
67. In his testimony, Eyal was asked about the sum of ILS 170, 000 mentioned in the document and was asked to explain how it is possible that this sum belongs to the work carried out in February 2020, as claimed by Y.A. Alon, when the document was drafted in mid-February, and one day after the January 2020 account was submitted, the witness failed to give a logical and convincing explanation for his version, and continued to insist that it was a sum that R.M.Z. was supposed to receive, insofar as it carried out the work specified in that document, work in February 2020.
68. Even after Eyal was presented with WhatsApp messages dated February 16, 2020 between him and Milad (which he confirmed in his testimony), according to which he was the one who asked to split the invoice in the sum of ILS 320, 000 into two invoices in the sum of ILS 150, 000 and ILS 170, 000 (p. 84, paras. 29-31), and was asked how he could still attribute the sum of ILS 170, 000 to February and not to January, the witness continued his evasion and claimed that: "No months of execution are recorded there" (p.  85, s.  12).
69. If so, it has been proven to me that even though this is an approved account for the month of January 2020, Y.A. Alon paid R.M.Z. only part of it, and even sought to evade paying the balance and attributing it to the January 2020 account.  Therefore, I hold that Y.A.  Alon breached the agreement when she did not pay the full amount of the approved account for the month of January 2020.

Cancellation of the agreement lawfully by R.M.Z.

70. According to R.M.Z., the January 2020 account was submitted on February 16, 2020, and in accordance with the agreement, the payment is "current + 30", i.e., as of March 16, 2020, while it left the site and announced the cancellation of the agreement on February 25, 2020. However, the violation of the payment terms was foreseeable, both in light of the ongoing violations in all the previous months of work, and in light of Y.A.'s announcement. Alon explicitly stated her intention not to pay the sum of ILS 170, 000 and to attribute it to the February 2020 account.
71. In her summaries, Y.A. Alon said that R.M.Z.  breached the agreement when it left the work site before the date for payment of the sum of ILS 170, 000 arrived, and that R.M.Z.'s claim of a foreseeable breach should be rejected, since it did not prove that there was an intention not to pay the sum of ILS 170, 000.  All the more so, when, according to her, Y.A.  Alon has met all of its obligations under the terms of the agreement in the distribution of payments.  As we saw above, Y.A.  Alon denied the balance of the January 2020 account and claimed that it belonged to the February 2020 account, so the violation was expected with a high level of certainty.
72. The above arguments of Y.A. Alon, they cannot coexist with the evidence in the case. As we saw above, Y.A.  Alon denied the balance of the January 2020 account and claimed that it belonged to the February 2020 account, so the violation was expected with a high level of certainty.  Moreover, Mr. Yitzhak himself, when asked in his interrogation why he did not pay the sum of ILS 170, 000, admitted that he did not intend to pay, and in his own words: "I made a simple calculation and looked at how much work he had left, and what was the balance of work he had, I calculated how much investment he had to make, and I told him no, you want to take too much money, and probably run away" (p.  61, S.  25-27).
73. In addition, all the witnesses on behalf of R.M.Z., whose credibility I was impressed, confirmed that they knew about Y.A.'s intentions. Alon did not pay the balance of the January 2020 bill, and that they were explicitly told that the sum of ILS 170, 000 was for the February 2020 work (see p. 19, paras.  24-28 of Milad's testimony, p.  35, paras.  11-19 of Shadi's testimony, p.  45, paras.  19 of Rami's testimony).
74. A foreseeable breach, which is enshrined in Section 17 of the Contracts Law (Remedies for Breach of Contract), 5731-1970 (hereinafter: the "Remedies Law"), grants the injured party the right to cancel the contract. This ground arises when a party to a contract expressly expresses its intention not to perform the contract, or when objective circumstances indicate an inability or desire to fulfill it.
75. Cancellation of the contract due to a foreseeable breach, like cancellation due to a current breach, distinguishes between a fundamental breach and a non-fundamental breach. In the event of a fundamental foreseeable breach, the victim is entitled to cancel the contract immediately. In the event of a foreseeable breach that is not fundamental, the injured party is entitled to cancel the contract only after he has given the breach an extension for its existence and the contract has not been fulfilled within a reasonable time after the extension is granted, subject to considerations of justice.  (See Civil Case (Jerusalem District( 26869-12-19 Zilberberg & Adler Promotion of Projects Ltd.    Royal Hashem Initiation and Investments Ltd.  [Nevo] (November 20, 2022). 
76. According to Y.A. Alon, since the parties did not define in the agreement the distribution of the payments as a fundamental breach and even signed the agreement without a payment distribution appendix, then the parties did not see the distribution of the payments as a fundamental condition and therefore its breach, if any, is not considered a fundamental breach, and the immediate cancellation of the agreement by R.M.Z. was unlawful.
77. I cannot accept this argument. Although the agreement between the parties does not explicitly state that non-compliance with the payment of the approved bills is a material and fundamental matter, I determine that this breach in the circumstances constitutes a fundamental breach of the agreement, based on the "probable fundamental breach" test set forth in section 6 of the Medicines Law, which examines whether a reasonable person would not have entered into a contract if he had foreseen the breach and its consequences (see Civil Appeal 7403/11 Beshma Investments and Finance Ltd.   Eliyahu Niago [Nevo] (August 13, 2013). 
78. It is clear that R.M.Z. would not have entered into an agreement with Y.A. Alon, if she had known in advance that Y.A.  Alon does not intend to pay the approved bills, and as a result, R.M.Z.  will not be able to meet its expenses and obligations.
79. As the evidence shows, the main disputes between the parties were regarding the non-payment of the consideration agreed upon by Y.A. If so, there is no doubt that the breach of the payment terms in this case constitutes a violation of the foundation of the agreement, and its business basis, where the terms of payment are one of the main principles of the agreement that underlies the commercial engagement between the parties.
80. This is a sum of ILS 170, 000, the balance of the January 2020 account, a significant sum, when R.M.Z. continued to work at the site in February and left it only towards the end of the month. When Milad was asked why he couldn't be patient when he was in the final stages and finish the work he committed to in the agreement and then settle accounts with Y.A.  Alon answered honestly: "There's a problem, sir, I have 170, 000 shekels, I have expenses, I have people...  I have workers who have to be paid, I have obligations, I have income tax, I have social security, I have cars, I have damages..." (p.  27, paras.  8-11).
81. He went on to add: "If a person wants to abandon the construction like this, as if to abandon him that he is, he has finished the work, and I, and I during this period, in the last week, brought a lot of workers, and look at it too, look at what is written, what Yossi (Yossi Nahmias - S.Y.( wrote to Shadi, good afternoon, I wanted to praise you for the day, really well done, today, on the 20th floor, this is the last floor, On the 19th floor, I couldn't move because of so many workers, very nice, keep it up, it was on the 20th, Your Honor, on the 19th... Look, I, a man who wants to leave and intends to leave, he brings workers in order to pay them" (p. 27, paras.  26-28).  The transcript of the recording of the WhatsApp message that Nahmias sent to Shadi, as read by Milad in his testimony, was attached to Shadi's main testimony affidavit (Appendix 23).
82. Milad also testified about Yitzhak's attitude during the engagement: "He didn't receive anything, he wasn't willing to listen, he wasn't willing to talk to you on the phone" (p. 10, s.  3), and specifically about Yitzhak's conduct on the day he left the site, February 25, 2020, with his brother, the owner of R.M.Z., who went to his office to receive the check for the sum of ILS 170, 000 in accordance with the agreements, in the following words:

"He didn't pay me a check for the 170, 000 shekels, my brother, who is the owner of the company, was at his office, and at the bookkeeping department to take the check, bookkeeping, telling him there is no such check and no such account, he went into Mr. Yitzhak, stuck him outside for two hours, didn't want to talk to him, as if he didn't know, God forbid, but my brother, who is the owner of the company, didn't respect him, After two hours he answered, came out and answered him, there is no such account, and he said to him, "Take a talk with my brother, Milad, who doesn't have such an account, I said to him, did you wait two hours and he didn't talk to you?" He told me yes, I told him okay, I called him, I told him if the check is not now today will be, I am leaving because it is the final date as if to be submitted, to give me the check.  I told him there is no check-in, I, today I am abandoning my job, that's it, and I told him a week ago, if I don't get the check, I will abandon it, both to Eyal and to Yossi" (p.  25, s.  32-39, p.  26, s.  1-2).

83. In the spirit of the matter, and following the conversation with Yitzhak on the day that R.M.Z. Leaving the work site, 25 February 2020, R.M.Z. sent a cancellation notice (Appendix 15 to Milad's affidavit), some of which I found it appropriate to quote: "Yitzhak behaves in a bullying, oppressive manner, and coercion, thinking that his arbitrary pattern of behavior will leave us as those who are forced to submit to all his conditions, demands and dictations, and to ask and beg that we be paid the money we are entitled to under the agreement, for work that has already been completed by the end of the calendar month preceding the preparation of the accounts.  These funds come to us by merit and not by grace.  We will not beg or bend to receive what we deserve.  You have a fundamental obligation to pay us everything we owe and you are violating, time and time again, your most fundamental obligation in the entire agreement, to pay the approved bill in full, and on time."
84. This is the place to note that I was impressed by the credibility of Milad's testimony, and I was convinced that he left the job because of the delay in making the payments as planned, and after S.A. Alon abused him and made him disgusted with his work.
85. Alongside Milad's testimony, the employees testified on behalf of R.M.Z. that Adi andmy mother, and their testimony also left a positive and reliable impression on me, supported the claims and R.M.Z.'s version, and sat down with it without contradictions.
86. On the other hand, the testimony of the witnesses on behalf of Y.A. Alon, Yitzhak, the CEO and Eyal the Director, were tendentious and forced, and sometimes evasive, aimed at serving the interests of Y.A.   Thus, too, I found material contradictions in their testimony (such as the versions regarding the payments appendix (Appendix C to the agreement), regarding the approval of the accounts by Nahmias, as well as regarding the approved account of January 2020), which undermines Y.A.  version.  Alon and its reliability.
87. In fact, and despite the fact that this was a relatively short engagement period of five months, R.M.Z. suffered from poor and unfair conduct on the part of Y.A. Alon, which made it difficult for her to finish the work, and became an intolerable reality, while directly harming the terms of the agreement and the reasonable expectations of R.M.Z..  Systematic conduct that amounts to a lack of good faith in the fulfillment of the agreement, and has led to a fundamental breach of the agreement, which justifies its immediate cancellation.
88. From all of the above it emerges that the violation on the part of Y.A. Alon was expected with high certainty. A.  Alon did not act with due diligence to correct the violations.  Even after receiving R.M.Z.  notice of the termination of work, Y.A.  was satisfied.  Alon, in threats and accusations against R.M.Z., denied the approved account for the month of January 2020, claimed that the sum of ILS 170, 000 was for the work for the month of February 2020, and conditioned the conduct of a dialogue between her and R.M.Z.  on the issues of disputes on the return of R.M.Z.  to the work site (see response letter dated February 28, 2020 - Appendix C to Yitzhak's affidavit).
89. From the conduct of the parties from the time of entering into the agreement until and after leaving the work site, it can be learned that R.M.Z. showed patience and gave L.A. Alon has several opportunities to meet its obligations and pay the approved bills that have been postponed and delayed from time to time.  Rather, the non-compliance of the Y.A.  Alon paid the approved bills, which were partially paid each month, and the explicit announcement of Yitzhak, the owner of Y.A.  Alon, on his intention not to pay the entire approved account for the month of January 2020, was based on R.M.Z.'s concern about an expected future violation.
90. If so, it has been proven to me that from the sequence of events and the conduct of Y.A. Alon, it is possible to learn about a clearly foreseeable breach, and therefore the cancellation of the agreement was done lawfully.
91. For the above reasons, with their cumulative weight, I determine that A. Alon fundamentally breached the agreement, and that R.M.Z. legally cancelled it.
92. Since this is my conclusion, I proceed to discuss the claims of R.M.Z. regarding the damages caused to it as a result of the breach and cancellation of the agreement, and the compensation to which it claims.

Consequences of canceling the agreement

93. Section 2 of the Medicines Law provides for compensation for breach of contract, as follows:

"If a contract has been breached, the injured party is entitled to sue for its enforcement or to cancel the contract, and he is entitled to compensation, in addition to or in place of one of the aforementioned remedies, all in accordance with the provisions of this law."

94. Breach of contract opens the door for the injured party to sue for the remedy for his damages, when the remedy for compensation is conditional on the fact that the damage was caused by the breach of the contract and its consequences, and that the violator saw it or should have seen it in advance, at the time of the conclusion of the contract, as a probable result of the breach (section 10 of the Remedies Law).
95. The result of the cancellation of the contract is a mutual duty of restitution, which is set forth in section 9 of the Medicines Law:

"(a( Once the contract is cancelled, the breach must return to the injured party what he received under the contract, or pay him the value of what he received if the restitution was impossible or unreasonable or the injured party chose to do so; and the injured party must return to the violator what he received under the contract, or pay him the value of what he received if the restitution was impossible or unreasonable or the injured party chose to do so."

96. M.Z. claimed that for the fundamental breach, it is entitled to cancel the agreement, and to the relief of payment of ILS 170, 000 for the balance of the account for January 2020, and in the sum of ILS 205, 000 for the work carried out in February 2020, in addition to compensation for its damages (loss of income and profits( estimated by it in the sum of ILS 100, 000.

January 2020 Account

97. In view of the above discussion and conclusions, and since it has been proven that the January 2020 account stands at ILS 320, 000, and after deducting the sum of ILS 150, 000, I charge Y.A. Alon to pay R.M.Z.  the balance of the account inthe sum of ILS 170, 000, plus VAT as required by 

February 2020 Account

98. There is no dispute that R.M.Z. left the work site on February 25, 2020, prior to the completion of all the work in accordance with the agreement.  However, until that date, R.M.Z.  had worked at the site, almost all of February 2020, and is entitled to compensation for the work carried out that month.  But from what? In the absence of an account approved by Y.A.  Alon for the February works, and in light of the cancellation of the agreement and the departure of the work site before the end of February, the question is, "What is the amount of compensation to which R.M.Z.  is entitled for those works?".
99. According to R.M.Z., according to a breakdown of work carried out in February 2020, and a transaction account submitted by R.M.Z. for that month, she is entitled to the sum of ILS 205, 000 (see Appendices 18-19 to Milad's affidavit).
100. On the other hand, Y.A.   Alon said that the details of the work for the month of February 2020 and the employment account for them that were submitted by R.M.Z.  do not obligate her, when until the day she "abandoned" the work site, she paid R.M.Z.  Overpayments, in relation to the works that remain to be completed in accordance with the agreement between them.
101. In fact, Y.A. Alon confirms that R.M.Z.  continued to work until February 25, 2020, butI did not find in its summaries any reference to the works themselves in accordance with the details attached by R.M.Z.  If so, and based on my determination above that R.M.Z.  received funds at the expense of the agreed consideration in accordance with the binding approvals of Y.A.  Alon, and since I determined that the January 2020 account was approved by Y.A.  Alon was only partially paid, the claim of Y.A.  Alon according to which R.M.Z.  received overpayments.
102. Until the day of R.M.Z. leaving the work site, R.M.Z.  received the sum of ILS 1, 050, 000 at the expense of the agreed consideration (which is ILS 1, 600, 000).  When it is proventhat Y.A.  Alon remains liable for a total of ILS 170, 000 for an approved account for the works performed in January 2020, since the balance of the consideration for the completion of the rest of the works, including works carried out in February 2020, is in the sum of ILS 380, 000.
103. It should not be forgotten that some of the approved accounts included irregular work that is not part of the agreed consideration. Therefore, it is clear that even after paying the balance of the account for January 2020 and February 2020, the balance for the completion of the remaining works is over ILS 200, 000, a reasonable balance in relation to the scope of the remaining works to be completed in accordance with the agreement, as I have been impressed by the evidence material.
104. Yitzhak confirmed in his testimony that Y.A. Alon did not document the status of the work as it was on the ground on the day that M.Z.  left the work site (p.  90, paras.  7-10).  He also claimed that it is possible to estimate the scope of the work that remains to be performed, in accordance with the work carried out by the new contractor who came in after him to complete the missing works and the consideration received by that contractor, in the amount of ILS 700, 000.  However, when asked if he had a work diary regarding the work that was performed, he claimed that he did not (p.  66, paras.  2-5).  Moreover, Y.A.  Alon did not present the accounts that were approved for the new contractor, even though they could have given a picture of the scope of the work that remained to be completed.  It also turned out that some of the work carried out by the new contractor was not included in the agreement with R.M.Z., and Yitzhak confirmed this in his interrogation (p.  47, paras.  2-3).  All of these are capable of undermining the Y.A.    Alon regarding the scope of the remaining work for the purpose of completing the work according to the agreement.
105. Shadi, the foreman of R.M.Z., testified that as far as R.M.Z was concerned, as a finishing contractor, all the work required of R.M.Z. for the purpose of Form 4 inside the apartments was ready, and all that remained were small completions, which depended only on other contractors, and therefore they did not delay the work (p.  37, paras.  2-4).
106. In order to prove his claims, Shadi referred to Appendix 25 of February 10, 2020, regarding the status of the work in the apartments, which indicates that by that day, interior doors had already been installed in most of the apartments. This fact shows that R.M.Z.  almost completed the work according to the agreement, since interior doors are usually installed after the finishing contractor has completed his work inside the apartments, so that the doors will not be damaged (p.  38, paras.  5-13), a logical and acceptable explanation for me.
107. If that were not enough, the WhatsApp correspondence between Shadi and Milad and between the foremen in B.A. Alon in the project's WhatsApp group (Appendix 24 to Shadi's affidavit), it is possible to get the impression that the work was in the final stages, and it also appears that if there were delays in the progress of the work, it was dependent on A.A.  Alon and other contractors and not in R.M.Z.
108. In addition, a review of the document dated February 24, 2020, which was held at a meeting held the day before R.M.Z.   The work site, R.M.Z.'s share in the works that were missing from the name of receiving Form 4, is only at the end of the "paint works in the public no later than March 3, 2020", and since the date of March 3, 2020, it is clear that it was registered in accordance with the status of the works in the field and in accordance with the ability of R.M.Z.  Complete the work, and the pace of her progress in the work.  Moreover, Eddy testified that at that meeting he remarked to Y.A.  Alon said that R.M.Z.  carried out this work (p.  36, para.  12).
109. However, the February 2020 account was not approved by a source on behalf of Y.A. Alon, but this does not lead to the conclusion that R.M.Z.  is not entitled to payment pursuant to it.  All that is required of R.M.Z.  was to submit her accounts, and from then on it was on Y.A.  Alon should examine the account, object to it, make her comments, or approve it.  As for the February 2020 account, Y.A.  Alon did not do anything and it can be said that she did not dispute him and did not claim that it was unfounded.
110. We also saw S.A. Alon did not claim that R.M.Z.  used to submit unfounded or exaggerated partial accounts to her, regarding the period from the date of the engagement until the end of January 2020.  Thus, in principle, there is no reason to cast aspersions on the February 2020 account, even though it was not approved by Nahmias or any other party in the B.A.
111. Eyal, a manager atY.A. Alon, in his interrogation, estimated that R.M.Z.  had about 3 months of work left until the completion of all the work to which it was committed in the agreement (p.  79, para.  38), an estimate that I believe is completely unfounded.  Later in his testimony, Eyal confirmed that the goals stated in the document he prepared on February 17, 2020 (a summary of the delivery schedule and payment schedule( (Appendix 14 to Milad's main testimony affidavit), constituted the completion goals of the entire project in relation to R.M.Z.  (p.  83, s.  13(-16).  When Eyal was asked how this answer was consistent with his estimate of the period remaining for R.M.Z.  to complete all the work, when a review of the remaining works according to this document is no more than a month's work, Eyal claimed that he estimates that repairs are required by the tenants after delivery , which are small repairs that last about two months.  It should be emphasized that this is not a year of inspection that is not the responsibility of R.M.Z., since this clause was deleted from the agreement.  To teach you that R.M.Z.  has carried out the lion's share of the work it undertook in the agreement, and a relatively negligible part remains to be performed.
112. In light of all of the above, and when it has been proven to me that R.M.Z. has carried out most of the work and has light finishing work of less than a month left, and taking into account that most of the remaining works to be performed by R.M.Z.  depend on the work of other contractors, it therefore follows that M.Z.  met the burden of proof, and proved its entitlement to the sum of ILS 205, 000 for the works carried out in February 2020, plus VAT in accordance with the law.

Compensation for Loss of Income and Profits

113. According to R.M.Z., due to the failure to complete the work on the project, following a breach of the agreement by Y.A. Alon, she suffered loss of income and loss of profits, in an amount that she estimated at least ILS 100, 000 (plus VAT).
114. M.Z. did not attach testimonies or documents to prove its claim and the extent of the injury, and in any case did not prove the extent of the damage as a result, and made do with general claims that were half-hearted in its summaries in the absence of evidence.  Therefore, there is no choice but to dismiss her claim on the basis of this damage.

The claim of Y.A.  Alon Caspit and the Promissory Note Claim

115. In light of the above determinations, and my determination that the person who breached the agreement was Y.A. Alon, the basis for her financial claim was dropped, and she is entitled to dismissal with all its components.
116. Yes, the R.M.Z. suspension was mainly accepted, and on the other hand, the Y.A.    Alon Mercury was rejected in its entirety, obviously, the conclusion is drawn that the conditions for the repayment of the security check were not met, andthe law of the Y.A.  lawsuit.  Alon Sheetrit, against R.M.Z.  and Mr. Milad Rahal, is also dismissed.

In conclusion

117. In light of all of the above, I accept R.M.Z.'s claim, in part (as stated in paragraphs 97 and 112 above), and bind Y.A. Alon paid ILS 375, 000, plus VAT in accordance with the law, plus interest and linkage from the date of filing the claim (July 20, 2020( until today, in the antitrust business of ILS 602, 000 (rounded).
118. I hereby order the dismissal of two claims by Y.A. Alon.
119. A. Alon will pay R.M.Z.  and Mr. Milad Rahal, together, a fee of 17.5% of the aforementioned amount, and legal expenses in the amount of ILS 10, 000.
120. The aforementioned sums will be paid to R.M.Z., through its counsel, within 30 days from the date of the judgment, otherwise linkage and interest differentials will be borne by law from today until the full payment is actually made.

Right to appeal within 60 days.