Whether the Court can reduce the pizzoim agreed to agreement
The Court derives its authority to reduce the agreed compensation under section 15 (a) of section language course, the Court should examine by the case was whether the reasonable person going into the shoes of one of the parties could know in signing the contract and that can cause permanent damage and expected amount will break the contract in violation of the type that was expected.
If the answer is Yes, it will not be possible for the Court to intervene in the case, if the answer is no, however will open the entrance to the Court to intervene to reduce the amount of the compensation agreed between the contract parties. The test that the Court chose to test the intercession in the case is a test.
Causal views test used by the Court for compensation have proved damaging, even if Dino which restricts the amount of views of the damage the right to compensation of damage was not expected during a contract due to her appearance and damage was not expected when felling.
A single case was not expected to damage happened without all reasonable proportion "damage was expected and thus reduces. There is also the opposite opinion in the case by the legislator in section 15 (a) when a contract home sides which reached the decision in a joint agreement and therefore the views and the incoming line section in this fundamental policy considerations the views. There is a similarity between the views for the reduction but emphasize the differences, the first difference in the compensation section is operated according to the actual damage caused by the violation.
According to the agreed compensation section starts from the hypothetical damage estimated that side/will be unable to breach. Under section 15 (a) is different between the expected damage during felling the contract and the agreed sum of compensation rather than between expected damage and the actual damage suffered by either side. The actual damage caused to one of the sides to irrelevant itself to run the authority of the Court being used unnecessarily, no matter whether the compensation amount is high or too low, the question being whether it is based on "likely" to damage and that damage could be expected to case. The result is another legal separates ordinary claim and claim due compensation agreed without actual damage/failure, view the damage or confiscation of pay for unexpected damage.
The prosecution agreed to pay less in two ways, firstly to compensate for unexpected damage isn't too but denied the manner that the Court is empowered to exercise the authority and eliminate the compensation, and that is the other thing when excessive compensation in an amount determined by a court can't reduce unless it was determined that he "doesn't respect" to damage him: sides, whatever, and say not all agreed that compensation can expect the damage to be expected from the beginning to just log reduction agreed that compensation is an exception in addition to the views.
Lawyer Vadim liran קולצ'ינסקי provides consulting services and assistance in drafting and revising contracts and agreements, each contract is worded, and in favor of the customer, so the legal definitions and allows maximum coverage of all significant points required for the contract.
Looking for Attorney contracts and agreements in Haifa? Looking for Attorney contracts and agreements in coincidence?
Contact us today with a lawyer Vadim (Aisha) קולצי'נסקי and we will be happy to provide you with a professional service.
A lawyer specializing in contracts and agreements.
This article is not legal advice and/or not to replace legal advice.