Even in the arguments that were voiced in the hearing held before the Honorable Registrar, the joint counsel for the respondents continued, inter alia, that "Polybit has offset claims against the loan... It's a separate agreement. It has a jurisdiction clause for the court. We do not claim that it is null and void, but we have a claim of offset... The court is mixing two different bodies here. I emphasize the distinction and say again, it can't be, there is the issue of canceling the agreement, the option regarding the loan - there is not a single word in all the documents that we are asking to cancel. We said Polybit said, I don't need to repay the loan because we have a claim of offset, that's what was said about the damages caused to Polybit" (Transcript Page 2, Line 19 - Page 3, Line 4).
If Polybit adopts the three agreements for its convenience and applies them in its favor, when it looks at their alleged breach of the agreement against it as well, In a manner that entitles it to offset It is obligated to pay the compensation that Geffen is obligated to pay by virtue of its breach of the three agreements, and in any case it is considered, even by implication, to have agreed to the arbitration clause included in these agreements.
- Polybit is a clear example of a party that is obligated to litigate arbitration even in the absence of its formal signature on an arbitration clause, when it faces a barrier."Mute and prevent(Paragraph 27 of Justice Mintz's judgment in the case of Mentioned Cell Above) also as one who does "Manipulative use of the incorporation screen" (ibid., paragraph 4 of Justice Kabub's judgment), even in court proceedings B"A deliberate, planned and calculated attempt to hold the rope at both ends", with the intention of building in the future that it will not be included in an arbitration proceeding, to the extent that it is feasible, on the grounds that it is not bound by the act of the court in its findings (CA 7660/21 DCS Reinforcement of Buildings Ltd. v. Yosef Kochavaparagraphs 10-11 of Justice Mintz's judgment).
Polybit cannot exempt itself from repaying the $1 million loan it received from Geffen on the sole defense claim that Geffen violated the three agreements with respondents 2-4 by fraudulently acting against them (other than that it has no other excuse) and at the same time to disavow the arbitration clause contained in these agreements.
- As stated, Polybit further argues that not only does the loan agreement not have an arbitration clause, but it also has a unique jurisdiction clause:
"… the competent courts of Tel-Aviv shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any dispute arising from or related to the performance or the interpretation of this agreement" (clause 3.7 of the loan agreement).