Witness Mr. Keinan: I did not say these sentences in the recordings..." - p. 26 of the transcript of paras. 14-20.
- In addition, the defendant answered in the negative to the court's question as to whether there was no accounting between him and the plaintiff regarding expenses and income in the business during all the months (p. 66 of the transcript of paras. 15-17); He also answered in the negative to the court's question whether he contacted the plaintiff every month with regard to income, expenses, profits and their distribution between them (p. 66 of Prot. 21-24); He further answered in the negative to the court's question as to whether, at any stage, he shared with the plaintiff the income, how much existing income actually existed (p. 66 of the transcript, paras. 29-31); The defendant also answered in the negative to the question of whether the plaintiff asked or asked to see the monthly income and expenses (p. 66 of the transcript of paras. 32-35).
These answers strengthen the defendants' argument and the defendant's answer (p. 55 of the transcript of paras. 36-37) that during the probationary period, the plaintiff and the defendant did not act as partners. testimony, which was not contradicted by the plaintiff.
- From the transcription of two recordings recorded by the plaintiff, which were attached as Appendix 4 to the defendant's affidavit, it was proven that:
- The plaintiff responded positively to the defendant's statement that before anything might happen, "first of all, we would determine the value of the company, that's all. With a reputation, without a reputation as much as you want, as you want, there is a mouth and a mouth.." and that "... I talked, ideas, we didn't close anything between us" - p. 20 of transcript 1, Appendix D, paras. 20-26.
- The defendant did not agree to any outline, did not agree to have money set aside and did not even agree to a salary of ILS 30,000 per month - p. 12 of transcript 1, Appendix D, S. 8-18.
- The plaintiff suggested in a second recording that they think about a format according to which after another year of the plaintiff's work the plaintiff would speak of sixty percent of the company, and two years later fifty percent (p. 16 of transcript 2, Appendix D, paras. 8-10). This proves that there was indeed no agreement between the parties as to the manner in which the plaintiff entered as a partner in the company, if at all, his share in the company and the manner in which his share in the company was paid - whether in money or in work of equal value.
- Contrary to what was claimed in the plaintiff's summaries (paragraph 30.1.4), the defendant did not confirm in his interrogation that the format of crediting the funds from the plaintiff's salary for the purpose of purchasing the company's shares was agreed upon between the parties, but that this is certainly a format that could have been taken into account or realized in the future "as soon as we sign a contract and it will be part of the process itself" - pp. 53-54 of the transcript. In practice, all that was agreed was that the plaintiff would receive compensation for his work in the sum of ILS 14,000 in exchange for an invoice.
- Moreover, I cannot accept the plaintiff's argument that it is inconceivable that he agreed to earn a sum of ILS 14,000 against an invoice, which is equivalent to an employer's cost of about ILS 8,500, when in fact invoices were presented in accordance with the plaintiff and the plaintiff did not even prove the proper salary of an entity with similar experience in the relevant years. This was proved by an expert opinion, which was not submitted.
The reference to the transcript of recording 1 in paragraph 32.5 of the plaintiff's summaries does not prove the plaintiff's claim, since from reading the transcript at the point in time that is claimed, it is a cynical statement by the defendant who informed him that the conversation was being recorded.
- In light of the above, and after considering the arguments of the parties, the testimonies that were brought before me, including the plaintiff's testimony, which was not found to be orderly, coherent, and reliable in my eyes as I detailed above, and the evidence presented to me in light of the law and case law, I am satisfied that the plaintiff did not meet the burden of proof, which is imposed on him in a civil trial, to prove that the agreement of January 1, 2020 reflects the agreements reached by the plaintiff and the defendant.
In addition, I am not persuaded that the plaintiff met the burden imposed on him to prove that there was a discretion on the part of the defendant to accept the offer, which is not sufficiently specific, in accordance with the agreement of 01.01.2020.