When asked why this was not written in his affidavit, the plaintiff replied, "Here, I say this" (p. 6 of the transcript of paras. 14-17).
The plaintiff would have been expected to write this, if not in the statement of claim, then in the affidavit of his main testimony, since we are dealing with a material fact, which attests, according to the plaintiff, to the date of the parties' agreement on the outline in accordance with the agreement dated 01.01.2020. The absence of this material fact in the statement of claim and in the plaintiff's main testimony affidavit impairs the plaintiff's credibility and even constitutes an expansion of a prohibited front, but since this claim was not made by the defendants, I will not elaborate on it.
The plaintiff later replied, "... I did not say that Dobi came out and announced that I was his new partner" (p. 6 of the transcript of S. 32 and again in S. 39). Answer, which erodes the plaintiff's credibility, since the impression created by the plaintiff's answers in light of his claims in his affidavit and in his interrogation is that the defendant agreed to the partnership outline proposed in the agreement of 01.01.25 and even made a representation, at least to the plaintiff, and behaved towards the plaintiff as a "partner".
Only later in his cross-examination did the plaintiff admit that only he and the defendant were in the room on January 7, 2020, and that no one overheard the conversation between them, and that none of the employees was even aware of the partnership outline or the agreement dated January 1, 2020 - p. 7 of the transcript of paras. 26-33.
- In the continuation of the plaintiff's cross-examination, it was proven that the parties did not agree that the plaintiff would indeed purchase a part of the company with certainty, what his share would be and how much he would acquire after the period of running - p. 9 of the transcript of paras. 2 to 12
"Witness Mr. Keinan: It's not closed. It was supposed to close after six months of trying...