This explicit objection, which is anchored in these letters, completely drops the ground under the claim of the existence of an 'implied contract' or that the defendant created a representation of consent. The plaintiff's awareness of the existence of an active and documented dispute regarding the hourly rate makes it clear that she acted in the shadow of an open dispute, and she was not prevented from knowing the defendant's true position.
In these circumstances, the fact that the plaintiff continued to provide the services to the defendant despite the objection constitutes a business choice for the plaintiff, and cannot establish a claim of legitimate reliance or a reasonable expectation that the rates will be updated.
- Regarding the tariff updates that were actually carried out over the years, the defendant's treasurer, Mr. Wael Amer, testified in the framework of a hearing that took place in a request for leave to defend that these updates were made solely in accordance with the official guidelines and updates published by the Ministry of Public Security and were calculated proportionally and proportionately by means of a "triple value" mechanism derived from the changing police rates.
The plaintiff agreed to these rates, as can be seen in the treasurer's working document (Appendix B to the defendant's summaries) and in the minutes of the hearing dated September 11,2023 (pp. 9-10).
This procedure, which is based on the police's update steps, is substantially different from a requirement to update tariffs by virtue of the extension order, which applies only to the employee-employer relationship and does not obligate the defendant as an external entity. Therefore, these updates do not strengthen the plaintiff's arguments with respect to the expansion order, since this is a separate matter that does not obligate the defendant to update an additional tariff.
- The plaintiff also sought to base her claim on copies of annual requests submitted by the defendant to the Israel Police in 2014,2015 and 2016 to finance security expenses at a rate of 64%, while reporting the updated rates.
On the other hand, the defendant categorically denied the authenticity of these documents and explicitly claimed that they were forged, while pointing to deletion marks in the "Tipex", the lack of a stamp and the absence of the original documents.