גיל נדל משרד עורכי דין

 

The Court Decides On The Accounting Between An Importer And An International Forwarder

 

Adv. Gill Nadel, Adv. Omer Wagner

 

A decision was recently issued by the Magistrate's Court of Tel Aviv deciding on the financial arrangements  between an importer and an international forwarder, on a number of subjects.

 

The facts of the case and the claims of the parties:

 

The Electra Corporation deals with the manufacture, marketing and repair of air conditioners. Electra imported various components from abroad, using the services of Mentfield Corporation, which provided it with international forwarding services.

 

During the importing the components, Electra needed to pay third parties for various expenses such as customs representation. The agreed process  between the parties was that Electra would pay Mentfield an extra balance, from which Mentfield would pay the third parties and update its bookkeeping index regarding the remaining balance.

 

A dispute arose between the parties on three subjects:

 

1. Interest: Electra claimed that since it paid extra funds to Mentfield, and the funds were left with Mentfield for a long time, Mentfield must pay interest for holding the funds. In light of this, Electra sent a demand for interest payments to Mentfield, who paid some of them and then ignored the interest demands. At the close of the relationship between the parties after a number of years, Electra filed an action for the interest that was not paid.

 

2. The pricing sheets: Electra claimed that it should have paid Mentfield according to the agreed pricing sheets, but in practice Mentfield collected a different tariff, while Mentfield claimed that Electra took the law into its own hands and continued to apply a tariff agreed on for a specific transaction, that had ended, for other future transactions instead of applying the general tariff, which actually means that Electra has remaining debts to Mentfield.

3. The computer system: Mentfield claimed that following Electra's demands, Mentfield installed a new computing system, investing 250,000 NIS, out of an expectation of continuing its relationship with Electra in the long term, but in the end Electra chose to break off relations with it, and therefore Mentfield claimed that in any case the sum invested in the computing system should be deducted from the sum claimed.

 

Electra's action amounted to 2.1 million NIS, and Mentfield's counter-action, claiming that Electra actually still owed it money, amounted to 168,000 NIS.

 

The Court's Decision:

1. Regarding the interest, the court ruled that the fact that Mentfield once paid interest at prime for the funds held cannot be used to demonstrate that there was an agreement between the parties regarding interest. The court accepted Mentfield's stance that it chose to pay the interest out of strategic considerationsto keep Electra as a customer, and even so this no agreement between the parties on this question existed.

2. Regarding the pricing sheets, the court ruled that the pricing sheets attached to the affidavits and to the testimony indicates that the agreement between the parties was that the general pricing sheet would apply (as  default) until the next general pricing sheet came out, but in specific transactions where it was agreed otherwise, the specific tariff would apply.

3. Regarding the computer system, the court rejected Mentfield's claim that Electra issued an unambiguous demand to make their computer system match the "Amital" program, since the court was convinced that in Electra's tender documents customs representatives were given the choice to operate any program they liked as long as the program worked with Electra's computing system. In addition, Mentfield's claim that Electra gave it a specific guarantee of reimbursement for adjusting the computer system was not proved. In light of this, Mentfield's claim on this issue was rejected.

 

In light of all of the above, the court ruled that the parties must make their calculations according to these principles.

 

(CA 25800-05 Electra Consumer Products Ltd. v. Mentfield (1983) Ltd, decision 13.10.10.

 

Advocates: For Electra- Adv. Israel Gable, for Mentfield- Adv. Afar Shapira and Roni Hoffman)