Therefore, in order to prove the existence of a partnership relationship, within the meaning of the Partnerships Ordinance, the person claiming to be a partnership must show that the external conduct of the parties indicates an intention to be partners.
In the absence of a single test in case law according to which it is possible to examine whether the relationship amounts to a partnership within the meaning of the Ordinance, the case law established a number of guidelines in light of which it is possible to examine whether there was indeed a partnership between the parties, thus, for example, the person claiming a partnership must show that the parties were presented to the general public as partners, that they participated in the management of the business, that they participated in the possession of the business's assets, that they had the right to make decisions equally, participation in the profits and losses of the business and more (see Civil Appeal 167/89 Tanami v. Hamsi, para. 11 ([published in Nevo], December 31, 1989); Civil Appeal Authority 4339/06 Euro-Pharm in Tax Appeal v. Peterman, para. 6 ([published in Nevo], August 21, 2006)). In addition, the main hallmark of the existence of a partnership is the distribution of net profits and participation in losses that endanger the investment (see the words of Justice Netanyahu in the matter of other municipal applications 532/83 Yehuda Sinai Investments in a Tax Appeal v. Israel and Yehudit Fishel, IsrSC 40(4) 319, 324.
It is clear that the burden of proving the existence of the partnership lies with the plaintiff who claims it in this case (see Cell (Tel Aviv District) 2711/06 Sadlinsky v. Mellinger ([published in Nevo] 3/4/11)).
- I will now turn to examine in the light of legislation and case law whether the agreement dated 01.01.2020, which is indisputably written by the plaintiff, constitutes a binding agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants or any of them, despite the absence of the parties' signature on it.
From the general to the individual
- In the framework of the plaintiff's cross-examination, he explained that the "partnership outline" of 01.01.2020 "was sent to Dubi, read by him, discussed at a meeting between us in the office in January, agreed upon, shook hands, is the document that is the basis of all the business relations between us. This is what I claim" (p. 4 of the transcript of the pro of 08 July 2025 (hereinafter: "transcription"), paras. 15-18).
- A reading of the language of the alleged agreement dated 01.01.2020, which is indisputably not signed by either party, shows that:
- The plaintiff and the defendant "expressed a desire to enter into a long-term partnership in the operation of a product development and architecture office according to the following outline:
Meni Keinan (my supplementary plaintiff) will join the existing business infrastructure of Dubi Ophir (my supplementary plaintiff).