To all of this, he further claimed in his cross-examination that, according to him, the plaintiff was not entitled to any commission in respect of Sales to Shufersal, Therefore, to the extent that something is given to him, it is given out of kindness and a desire to help him (p. 60, paras. 13-15 of the minutes of the hearing).
I found this version of Mr. Dershewitz to be lacking and one that is difficult to fully adopt.
I find a considerable factual discrepancy between the claim that the plaintiff's approval was required and obtained prior to the sale of the products to Shufersal and the current factual version that Paragon is asking me to approve today. Moreover, where a party presents factual versions that are different from one another, in two different proceedings, this raises quite a few question marks regarding the reliability of his version as a whole.
Naqvi is joined by the same invoice that the plaintiff attached to his evidence, which showed that he was given a credit of 5% of the annual sales commission to Shufersal.
- Dershewitz testified in relation to the fact that the discount was given in light of the financial difficulties that the plaintiff encountered, that this discount was given only once, and from the invoice itself it can be seen that the discount was given not only in connection with Shufersal's purchases, but also with respect to other factors, when the purpose was to give the plaintiff a total discount of about a quarter of a million shekels (see the invoice, Appendix 19, at p. 194 to the plaintiff's exhibits file and the testimony of Mr. Dershewitz, at p. 60, s. 16). - p. 61, s. 7 of the minutes of the hearing of April 19, 2023).
In this regard, Mr. Shlomo Haberman further testified that Paragon does not give benefits to anyone and that it is possible that this was made on an assumption that was given in light of a request or special circumstances of which he is not aware (see p. 92, paras. 19-23 of the minutes of the hearing of April 19, 2023).
- However, the amount of the discount that was actually given in the context of the sales to Shufersal, amounting to a total of ILS 23,919.35, is not significant, and is very far from the picture that the plaintiff sought to paint in the statement of claim and the proceeding before me.
- I also note that none of the litigants He did not ask to summon the representatives of Shufersal, who were present at the meeting with the plaintiff, in order to shed light on the picture with regard to the circumstances of the engagement with Paragon, the tripartite meeting that took place and the agreements reached within it.
I have nothing but regret about it, but A place where The evidentiary burden is basically on the shoulders of the plaintiff who seeks to prove his eligibility to receive the commissions from Shufersal, and given my conclusions above regarding the failure to prove the claim of exclusivity, This figure of not summoning witnesses on behalf of Shufersal is mainly due to the plaintiff's obligation. - Given all of this, I have come to the conclusion that the plaintiff did not meet the burden imposed on him to prove that Paragon did indeed undertake to pay him commissions in respect of its sales to Shufersal, and in any case it was not proven what the agreement was as to the scope of those commissions.