Our office represented the well-known celebrity Karin Magrizo in a financial claim brought against ToGo Garments and Shoes Ltd. for breaching an agreement, on account of using Karin Magrizo’s image in Togo’s publications after the agreement between them had ended, contrary to the provisions of the agreement.

The Magistrates’ Court in Tel Aviv (Judge Sharon Geller) considered the lawsuit, and determined that the right of celebrities to protect their economic interest as regards the commercial use of their image had been acknowledged in judicial decisions as a protected right called the right to publicity.

Likewise, the Court determined that one of the damages that the claimant, as a “reasonable celebrity” presumably sought to avoid  by the stipulation on agreed compensation made in the contract entered into between the parties – was the damage expected to be caused to her if the defendant were to continue using her image, thus making other commercial entities refrain from entering into an engagement with her in the course of that period or terminating the engagement with her, as the claimant’s figure would thus continue to being associated with the defendant and its products, even though the agreement period had ended.

The Court eventually condemned ToGo Garments and Shoes to pay Karin Magrizo the total amount of 89,600 NIS on account of breaching the agreement, as well as expenses in the amount of 20,000 NIS.

Our office represented a couple at a lawsuit for agreed compensation on account of breaching a sales agreement for selling a second-hand apartment, in which the two parties were represented by one and the same advocate, while the buyers (defendants) started renovating the basement of the residential home without the knowledge or consent of the Sellers (claimants), thus obtaining possession of the residential apartment before paying the full consideration for it, and before the buyers were entitled to obtain possession of the apartment.    

As part of their defense, the buyers asserted that they had reached an understanding with the tenant at the apartment, pursuant to which they would be afforded access so as to carry out a renovation in the basement prior to obtaining possession of the apartment. However, the Court did not entertain said allegation, after the buyers had not summoned the tenant to testify in court about the truthfulness of their version. On this matter, the Court determined that the presumption that has come to be held is that if the tenant were summoned to testify – his testimony would operate to the detriment of the buyers (defendants).

Likewise, the Court rejected the buyers’ assertion, according to which the possibility of renovating the basement prior to handing over the possession had been discussed, since such possibility was not mentioned at all in the sales agreement. The Court also rejected the contention made by the lawyer (who represented both parties in the sales transaction), to the effect that this subject matter “had slipped his mind”, since we are concerned with a subject matter that is substantial for the nature of the claim.

The Court determined that the performance of renovations in part of the residential apartment amounts to obtaining possession of the residential apartment in its entirety.

Likewise, the Court rejected the defendants’ allegation, to the effect that they rectified the breach once they had paid the full consideration and this for the simple reason that the rectification of the breach (the performance of a substantial renovation) had to be done restoring the previously prevailing state of affairs, and not by paying the full consideration.
The Court eventually condemned the defendants to pay compensation in total amount of 36,341 NIS, as well as costs in the amount of 5,000 NIS, and this in consideration of the fact that the greater part of the consideration (80%) had been paid prior to the committing of the breach.

Our office represented a couple, who sold their house in the locality of Kadima for a total of 1,060,000 NIS, in a lawsuit against real estate broker on account of a breach of her duties towards them, due to an underestimation of the value of her house, which made the sellers sell their house for a consideration falling below its real value.

It should be pointed out that after the sellers had gotten into dispute with the buyer of the house, they ordered a statement of opinion to be made by an appraiser, which established that the house’s real value is higher by 390,000 NIS then the value at which it had been sold in reliance upon the broker. Likewise, the claimant discovered that the defendant had not at all held a license for brokerage in effect as of the date of concluding the transaction.

The Court established that the defendant had performed a brokerage operation for the claimants (after the latter asserted that she had not served at all as broker in the transaction), for which reason she owed the notional duty of care towards the claimants, as well as owing the duty of fairness by virtue of the principle of good faith. The fact that the defendant did not hold a valid brokerage license at the date of concluding the transaction (due to non-payment of fees) either increases or diminishes her liability towards the claimants.

The Court further established that, in light of the claimants’ acquaintance with the defendant (the broker) for years and due to their being an adult couple residing in Tel Aviv – they are not knowledgeable about the value of houses in the locality of Kadima for which reason the Court determined that the claimants had relied upon the defendant with regard to the value of the house.

The Court eventually established that the value of the house as of the date of its sale stood at 1,225,000 NIS (and this due to the run down state of repair of the house, as well as due to the betterment tax for rendering legal unlawful construction work performed in the house), and condemned the defendant to pay the claimants, a total of 165,000 NIS, plus the fees the claimant had paid the defendant, along with costs in the amount of 18,000 NIS.  

Our office represented a couple (the defendants and counter claimants), who entrusted a renovations contractor (the claimant and counter defendant) for carrying out works at their home in Sha’arei Tikva.

In this lawsuit, the renovations contractor sought to have the spouses condemned to pay the amount of 80,000 NIS that was not paid to him pursuant to the agreement between the parties. (who were represented by our office) asserted that the contractor had not completed the renovations works, had not carried those out continuously (which is expressly contrary to the provisions of the agreement between the parties), and at a low, diminished standard.

As part of the proceeding, the spouses filed a statement of opinion on behalf of an engineer, which establishes that in the works performed by the renovations contractor his allegation that evidentiary damage had been caused to him due to the fact that all the deficiencies set forth in the statement of opinion made by an engineer on behalf of the defendants had been remedied prior to the legal proceeding, and this in light of the fact that the contractor did not bother to make a request and/or to present any inquiry, according to which he sought to send for an expert on his behalf (whether as part of the legal proceeding or before it), even though he knew that a dispute existed between the parties concerning the renovation works performed by him.

Further, the Court determined that it would not stand to reason that a family consisting of 8 members would be required to keep on living at a construction site thrown out in order to make it possible for a contractor to send for an expert on his behalf.

The Court eventually dismissed the lawsuit of the renovations contractor in its entirety, entertained the counteraction filed by the defendants, and condemned the contractor to pay the amount of 75,490 NIS, as well as costs in the amount of 9,000 NIS.

Our office represented the defendant, a company for the management of a  condominium also operating as an apartments hotel in the beach line at the promenade in Tel Aviv, in a lawsuit filed against it by one of the tenants of the building, as well as in a connection bought by it against the tenant (claimant).  

As part of the tenant’s main legal action, he sought a declaratory relief from the Magistrates’ Court in Tel Aviv, which indicates that the defendant (the management company) is not entitled to collect management fees, and in the alternative to have a declaratory order issued, which clarifies what the management company’s right to collect management fees consist in.  

Conversely, the management company filed, through our office, a counteraction in the amount of 44,069 NIS on account of the debt owed by the tenant for management fees.

The Court dismissed the lawsuit filed by the tenant and entertained the counteraction filed by the management company, and determined that the management company is entitled to collect management fees from the claimant in light of the provisions of the management agreement. Further, the court determined that the management fees include, among others, expenses on account of private dwellings insurance, uniforms of reception clerks, mail, fees and licenses, expenses incurred by the office serving the management company, expenditures on legal services and accounting and more.

Reply to a petition filed with the Supreme Court by Dekel Golan, as part of which the Court was requested to order Respondents 1-3 (the mayor of Tel Aviv, the commander of the Tel Aviv Police, and the officer in charge of the Tel Aviv region) to work to prevent the breach  of laws concerning the licensing of businesses and the by-laws of the Tel Aviv Municipality in the Neve Tzedek area, in reference to the operations of Respondents 4-10 as well as to order them to put in place enhanced means of control and enforcement, and to also Order Respondents 1-3 to use their authority to issue administrative close down and discontinue orders against those businesses that are open after the hour 24:00 and sell alcohol after this hour, and to enforce peremptory rules given for closing those.

The Supreme Court determined that this is about remedies pertaining primarily to the operations of the local authority headed by Respondent 1 (the mayor of Tel Aviv), and also the discretion its exercises, mainly on the subject matter of enforcement of the laws on the licensing of businesses. As is well known, the jurisdiction of the Court in Charge of the Administrative Affairs is not solely limited to the contestation of decision adopted by the local authority, but likewise extends to petitions that are concerned with the local authority’s failure to adopt decisions or omissions it made.

The petition was dismissed due to the existence of an alternative remedy, namely resorting to the Court in Charge of Administrative Affairs.   

Lawsuit for the enforcement of a sales transaction that was concluded, on the assertion of the Claimant Ronen Nataniy, and Defendant No. 1, Shmon Pinchas Buskila, who was represented by our office.

By Nataniy’s account, Buskila undertook to sell him a building on 1 Matalon St. In Tel Aviv for a total of 4,300,000 NIS, as part of a “package deal”. Pursuant to that same package deal, Nataniy was supposed to sell Buskila his house in Rechovot for a total of 2,700,000 NIS. The difference between the prices of the two assets, the amount of 1,600,000 NIS – Nataniy was supposed to pay Buskila. Nataniy further asserted that after the conclusion of the sales transaction, Buskila backed away from his undertaking, hence the lawsuit, as part of which Nataniy seeks the enforcement solely of the sale of building.

Conversely, Buskila asserted that he had indeed agreed to sell the building to Nataniy in the name of his mother who is the holder of the rights to the building, but the agreed price was 7,000,000 NIS and not 4,300,000 NIS.

The Court dismissed the lawsuit and condemned Nataniy to pay costs to Buskila in the amount of 50,000 NIS.   

As part of a petition for issuing a preliminary prohibitory injunction, the petitioners requested the Magistrates’ Court in Tel Aviv to direct the respondents, who are owners of adjoining real estate, among them Zemach Hammerman Ltd., Eurocom Real Estate – Project Management Ltd and Neve Tzedek on the Sea Corporation (which were all represented by our office) to avoid using makeshift anchors that penetrate into the real estate of the petitioners.

In its decision of 14.4.11, The Court dismissed the petition for issuing a preliminary prohibitory injunction, while determining that the balance of convenience tips in favor of the respondents, and that the act performed by the respondents is in keeping with the Urban Building Scheme.

The District Court in Jerusalem determines that the amendment to the law allowing an attorney to collect attorney’s fees either than as an amount of money shall apply retroactively, in case such demand has been made after the amendment in question.

Up  until 2012, the rules of ethics provided that lawyers are entitled to collect attorney’s fees only as an amount of money, and they were forbidden from collecting their fees by any other means (rights in real estate, shares and so forth). In the year 2012, section 9 of the rules of the Israel Bar Association (Professional Ethics) was amended, and from that dates onwards an attorney to collect his fees other than in money.

In a lawsuit recently filed by Yitzhak Ben Abraham, through our office, the question was discussed what will apply to the demand for payment of attorney’s fees after the year 2012, on account of an agreement on attorney’s fees concluded before the year 2012, and whether it would be possible to retroactively apply the amendment to the rule of the Israel Bar Association.

For that matter, Ben Abraham purchased, by way of assignment of rights, the rights of Adv. Friedman by virtue of an agreement on attorney’s fees signed in the year 1998 between him and the founders of the company Tomer Elkana Ltd. pursuant to which he was entitled to 8.9% of the share capital of the company holding a real estate in close proximity of the localities of Elkana and Shaarey Tikva in Samaria.

Abshalom Adam and Sigal Suchochovsky, shareholders in the company Tomer Elkana, asserted that Ben Abraham’s lawsuit has to be dismissed in limine, among others because the agreement on attorney’s fees between Adv. Friedman and the shareholders was illegal, since at the time it was signed it was prohibited to collect attorney’s fees other than as an amount of money. The District Court in Jerusalem (the Honorable Judge Romano) dismissed the petition to be dismissed in limine, after he had established that the date of record was the date, at which the demand was made by virtue of the agreement signed on attorney’s fees, and not the date, at which the agreement was signed.

The Court even noted further that, in consideration of the fact that Adv, Friedman did his share in the agreement and successfully represented the shareholders, “it is doubtful whether it would be just to exempt the respondents from fulfilling their obligations towards Adv. Friedman in everything concerning the payment of his attorney fees”.

A lawsuit and counterclaim was thus filed as part of a dispute that arose between Shani Yizhari, a beginning singer (at the time), who was represented by our office, and her personal managers, Stern and Ilit Barzilay and Tomer Biran.

As part of the arbitral award given by the arbitrator, Adv. Meir Estreicher, the lawsuit was filed by the personal managers of Shani Yitzhari on account of a potential profit in the amount of 5,500,000 NIS was dismissed, whereby it was established that the latter concluded negotiations in bad faith, while making a misrepresentation and adding a section to the management agreement without the knowledge of Shani Yizhari. 

The Magistrates’ Court in Tel Aviv (Judge Rahamin Cohen) determined that there occurred in Skoda vehicles of Octavia models from the years 2007-2008 many substantial defects in manufacturing, including in the fly-wheel and in the air conditioning system, and condemned the importer of Skoda in Israel Champion Car Sh. M., to pay the claimants compensation for the defects in an amount of over 100,000 NIS, at a lawsuit filed through our office.

The claimants, Amiram Tennenboim, Yoram Binderman, Amiram Serfer, Lior Alter and Haim Segal, bought from Champion Car new vehicles of Skoda Octava model from the years 2007-2008 for their work as taxi drivers. In the course of using the vehicle, the claimants had to come to the Champion Car garage frequently for the purpose of repairing malfunctions that recurred in all vehicles.

Those malfunctions occurred in the fly-wheel, in the gearbox, in the air conditioning system and in the electric engine used by the windows in the vehicles.

In the lawsuit filed through our office, the claimants asserted that the above-mentioned malfunctions were due to defects in the manufacturing, while requesting the Court to condemn Champion to pay them compensation for their full expenses on account of repairing the above-mentioned malfunctions, the decrease in value caused to the vehicle, the loss of working days and mental anguish.

In its judgment of 6.6.13, the Court entertained the action of the claimants, and condemned Champion Car to pay all the components of legal action, as well as legal; costs in the amount of 30,000 NIS. 

Both parties were associates in real estate in Petach Tikva, where the appellants held 40% of the real estate and the respondent held 60% of the real estate. As part of the action for dissolution of the association brought by the respondent, the parties reached an agreement to dissolving the association, under which it was agreed that the defendant would purchase the rights of the appellants in the real estate pursuant to a statement of opinion to be made by an appraiser thus appointed by the parties, who would thus determine the value of the real estate without deducting VAT, and that the determination of his would be binding upon the parties.

In the statement of opinion, the appraiser determined that the value of the appellants’ share in the real estate, exclusive VAT, stands at 2,631,200 NIS, and that the value of said share, inclusive VAT, stands at 3,104,816 NIS.

The parties differed over the amount that the respondent had to pay the appellants: the lower amount (exclusive VAT) or the higher amount (inclusive VAT)?  

In the action brought by the respondent, through our office, to the Magistrates’ Court in Petach Tikva, the respondent’s position was accepted to the effect that the appellants were entitled to the lower value (exclusive VAT).

The appellants filled an appeal against this decision.

The District Court in the Central Region District dismissed the appeal, and determined that this was about a dispute on appraisal, namely whether, for the purpose of appraising the value of the real estate the VAT amount has to be included. The appraiser made it known that, by his method; the value is not inclusive VAT, since we are concerned with real estate belonging to the company of business assets. Conversely, the appellants contended  that the appraiser was wrong in assuming that the market relevant for real estate is the market of dealers (for instance contractors), thus classifying the real estate as a business asset, since this market of private buyers, such as purchasing groups, had to be taken into account as well.

As stated, the Court rejected the contention, and laid down that the determination as to which market is concerned (the market of dealers or of private individuals) is a question for the appraiser too. Hence, where an agreed upon appraiser has been appointed and his determination may not be contested – the appellants are not entitled to dispute this determination of his.   

Action for the enforcement of a draft founder agreement between the claimant and another two individuals and the “Israeli Group”, which is concerned with a venture for constructing a private Jewish cemetery on Mount Olives, along with a lawsuit for obligating Defendant No. 1 (who was represented by our office) to transfer to the claimant his shares in the company which held rights in said venture.

As part of his lawsuit, the claimant maintained that the draft agreement has to be regarded as a binding agreement, even though it was not signed. To his way of thinking, a decision has been reached by the parties to enter into a binding agreement, the substantial details of which appear in the draft agreement and that as far as the agreement lacked details, those are not substantial and can be provided subsequently.

The Court dismissed the lawsuit, as stated, and determined that not all the parties to the agreement were subsumed under the procedure in question, whereby the identity of some of the parties to the agreement (for instance the “Israeli Group”) is not clear legal entity, hence it is not possible to enforce the agreement. The Court further determined that there was no clear date which was the time of concluding the contract; hence it is not possible to say that a decision was reached in connection with the founder agreement.

The Court likewise noted that the draft agreement was not signed and that the heading of the draft agreement was “Draft for Negotiation Purposes Only”, which indicates that we are not concerned with a done deal, but with a negotiation phase.

The Court also dismissed the allegation concerning the transfer of the shares of Defendant No. 1 in the company that owned rights, as stated, since this allegation was not properly proven, and is in contradiction to the factual state of affairs.

Finally, the Court condemned the claimant to pay the costs in the amount 50,000 NIS to Defendant No. 1 (who was represented by our office), and the amount of 50,000 NIS to Defendants Nos. 2-6.

An arbitral award was given in the year 1999, in a dispute between the singer Boaz Sharabi and the Company Accord Ltd., which was its artistic performances managers at the time, concerning a financial dispute in connection with the well-known performance Latet (“To Give”).

In essence, an agreement was signed between the parties, pursuant to which Boaz Sharabi is entitled to a fixed fee, a retainer, on account of his performances. However, in due course, when Sharabi saw that the revenues from the performances are higher that he had expected, he sought to alter the terms of the agreement. After the claimants had refused to do so, Sharabi broke off ties to them, and pocketed all of his revenues from the performances in question.
In his decision, the arbitrator Itamar Pilpel (retired judge), entertained the claim, and determined that Boaz Sharabi had to pay Accord the amount of 547,276 NIS on account of their share in the revenues from said performance.