No general change in business circumstances was presented to me showing that the franchise agreements were about to be terminated, as a result of a change in the conduct of the Max Stock chain. It continues to be active in Bat Yam and Sderot, and to this day the relationship continues in accordance with the Ashdod Agreement.
In these circumstances, I do not accept the counter-defendants' argument that no infrastructure was presented for a ten-year franchise period. This was presented, taking into account the details of the negotiations presented above, and the judgment in the Bloom case. The counter-defendants referred to this judgment in paragraph 26 of their reply summaries, but did so only in order to compare it with another ruling. Still, this judgment establishes the possibility of long-term franchise agreements in accordance with their language, and this is the case before us.
Hence, Dr. Mofakadi is correct when he noted that he acted conservatively when "I did not include in the analysis the very long period of time, for example about 15 years, despite the fact that according to the concessionaires, they entered into a 'for life' agreement as they put it" (paragraph 49 of the opinion).
- The counter-defendants complain that the opinion does not take into account the fact that for almost a year the franchisees continued to operate under the Max Stock brand. In this regard, the parties agreed that they would act for a separation until April 2018, and in fact this separation was made only in October of that year (see above at paragraphs 12-14).
However, this argument ignores the fact that the business conduct at the time was not ordinary. As Mr. Shimshon noted, after the cancellation notice, "the plaintiff began to act in a series of unilateral, aggressive and aggressive actions against the defendants, with the aim of pushing me and the other defendants out of the stores and establishing facts on the ground, such as stopping the supply of goods to the stores and leaving their shelves empty" (paragraph 85 of his affidavit in the franchise suit). These claims, which were not contradicted, show that it cannot be argued that the same activity in 2018 should be considered routine.
- The counter-defendants claim that Dr. Mofkadi did not examine data from the Mayan system, but that he denied it (see p. 143 Q.15), and also mentioned details about Max Stock's business activity . Against this background, I did not get the impression that the opinion was deficient in this respect.
- And whenthe opinion is examined on its merits, it can be seen that it has indeed adopted various conservative assumptions. As Dr. Mofakadi noted, he assumed efficiency in manpower, "which ostensibly assumes that in the activity under the 'Max' brand, they worked inefficiently with the manpower, and this is an assumption that I think is very conservative" (p. 151, s. 18).
In addition, an examination of the forecast of the expected activity shows that the rate of increase in profit is very moderate (and stands at ILS 999,891 as of 2027, compared to ILS 814,601 in accordance with the actual data for 2017). As for the profits under the forecast of independent activity that is not under the Max brand, these were set at significant rates (for example, of ILS 372,838 as of 2027). Hence, the gap between the two scenarios, which is the basis of the opinion, is moderate and conservative.