An entrepreneur leased a 2,500 square meters of roofs from a private individual for the purpose of installing a photovoltaic (solar) system, but the agreement was suddenly terminated upon notice, apparently due to dissatisfaction with the economics of the transaction.
The Court partially accepted the claim and held that the agreement was unlawfully terminated and therefore the entrepreneur is entitled to compensation for the profit it was deprived of. A party harmed by a breach of contract may exercise the right of termination granted to it by law, even if the main reason that brings it to do so is the desire to get out of an unprofitable transaction. The parties to a contract must cooperate with each other as part of the duty to act in good faith and if both parties contributed to the damage through by their conduct the responsibility should be divided between them. Here, the parties undertook in the agreement that the lessor would be entitled to terminate the agreement due to its breach by the lessee only in case of a materiel breach and by a ninety days prior notice and only if the lessee did not correct the breach. The lessor had contentions against the entrepreneur for material breach due to failure to present an insurance certificate and causing damage during the installation work, but in the notice letter the entrepreneur was granted only ten days to correct the breach and de facto, the agreement was terminated before the ninety-day period lapsed, contrary to the agreement. The lessor refused to meet with the entrepreneur and make a sincere attempt to settle the dispute, but on the other hand, the entrepreneur did not take an initiative indicating cooperation and a serious approach and took it lightly with an "it will be fine" approach. Therefore, the termination of the agreement was unduly made and the entrepreneur will receive compensation that reflects the loss of profit that was expected in the transaction had it gone ahead, but in view of its contribution to the conflict, the amount of compensation to which it is entitled was reduced by 50%.