Adv. Hochman: It means that you enter a business where you don't know how much you are buying it
Witness Mr. Keinan: Correct
Adv. Hochman: There is no price tag on it
Witness Mr. Keinan: Correct
Adv. Hochman: You didn't sum up the percentages you receive
Witness Mr. Keinan: Correct
Adv. Hochman: You didn't agree on the price
Witness Mr. Keinan: Right"
In other words, it has been proven that the agreement dated 01.01.2020, which is called by the plaintiff a "partnership outline", does not constitute an agreement for the purchase of part of the company by the plaintiff.
- Despite the plaintiff's claim that the defendant is as he put it, "... When he was asked on several occasions on page 9 of the transcript from S. 26 to P. 11 of the transcript S. 9 to refer to an email, a WhatsApp message in which he wrote to the defendant accordingly, the plaintiff replied, "And each time with different claims, orally, he dragged me."
Moreover, despite receiving the company's balance sheets for the last three years, the plaintiff admitted that he did not make a valuation of the company - p. 11 of the transcript. This strengthens the defendants' claim that there was no discretion and specificity regarding the plaintiff's entry as a partner or his acquisition of part of the company.
In addition, the plaintiff could not explain why the plaintiff was claiming ILS 180,000 for funds that he claimed were supposed to be in trust for him, when the running period is about six months and multiplied by ILS 15,000, the maximum amount is ILS 90,000 - p. 13 of the transcript of paras. 33-39. Moreover, from the language of the agreement dated 01.01.2020, it is not clear that ILS 15,000 will be set aside for each month to the trust.
- When the defendants' attorney went on to ask the plaintiff, "Where during all this period do you check with Dobby, ask Dobby, tell me Dobby, where are the funds of my trust? You're setting them aside for me, right? What happens to my escrow's deposit? You're setting it aside for me, right? Are you talking to him about it?"
The plaintiff replied: "On the loyalty, no" - see p. 14 of the transcript at paras. 3-9.