In accordance with Dr. Mofkadi's opinion, there was a significant improvement in the profitability of the Bat Yam branch in the years 2015-2017 (see p. 20 of his opinion). In 2014, the net profit was only ILS 168,263 (for the first half of the year); but in 2017 it was ILS 814,601. In these circumstances, and at the required level of the balance of probabilities, it can be determined that it was Max Stock's breach of the agreement that led to the closure of the branch at the end of the day. If things had proceeded properly, he would not have been able to compete with another branch of the Max Stock chain, and would have continued to enjoy the reputation that accompanied his activities under its wings.
- Under these circumstances, the true data of the Bat Yam branch are "too contaminated", when it turns out that the branch was closed with the addition of the fact that it could not compete with the branch of the Max Stock company, which was established in violation of the franchise agreement. This is in contrast to the Sderot branch, which is active and is still standing today. This is a case in which the difference between an estimate and an estimate based on the existing reports will not be large. The hypothesis component will be high in any case.
Against this background, it is necessary to mention the rulings in the Anglo-Saxon case, according to which "there are therefore situations in which it is appropriate to be lenient with the injured party who seeks to receive compensation for this head of damage [of loss of profits], while giving the court discretion to estimate the rate of the loss" (ibid., at para. 35). Shalev and Adar also noted with regard to the loss of profit expected from the performance of a contract that "it has been determined more than once in case law that the determination of compensation 'often requires conjecture and guesswork, ' and that for this reason a lenient approach should be taken with the injured party who seeks to receive compensation for it" (Shalev and Adar, at p. 350).