A company entered into an agreement with a fundraiser, but refused to pay the agreed commission because the funds were raised from an “ordinary investor” through a well-known internet platform for "crowdfunding" while some of such were already associated with it.
The Court accepted the claim and held that the company must pay the agreed commission in accordance with the fundraising agreement. A main pillar in the existence of a business world and engagements between corporations and individuals is the respect of the agreements in which they engage. There is no room for discussion of the intention of the parties when the words of the agreement are clear and understandable. Here, it was agreed that the fundraiser's role was to locate and establish contact between the company and a party that will raise capital for it in any form. An investment company the company approached, with the efforts of the fundraiser, recommended raising funds through a related party that deals in crowdfunding. The company clearly undertook to pay the commission, even though it knew it was a crowdfunding campaign on a well-known internet platform. Only after the crowdfunding campaign was successfully completed did the company try to change the wording of the agreement and cast new content retroactively to its intent, according to which the agreement only concerned the raising of capital from specific and defined investors who meet certain criteria (such as: financial entities/investment houses etc.), without there being any mention of this in the agreement. In this case the company's undertaking was clear, therefore the company must pay the commission.