All that has been proven is that the plaintiff was, as mentioned above, a very significant marketer of Paragon and she sought to examine the possibility of marketing the products through him. When this intention did not succeed, there was indeed talk between the parties about granting various benefits to the plaintiff, but these were never translated into an agreement or clear agreements, and the parties were satisfied with "ad hoc" agreements in the framework of which the plaintiff was given these and other specific discounts or benefits, and thus the parties agreed to deal with the issue. All this while the plaintiff is well aware of the fact of Paragon's engagement with Shufersal.
Competition Stipulation
- According to the plaintiff, defendant 2, Mr. Alfasi, breached his obligations not to compete with him, after the termination of the partnership relationship between the parties.
- In this regard, the plaintiff sought to base his arguments on clause 23 of the partnership agreement (Appendix B to the statement of claim). The plaintiff also sought to refer to the fact that he had paid a sum of ILS 650,000 for the purchase of the rights in the partnership, which according to him must have significance.
On the other hand, Mr. Alfasi claimed that the plaintiff remained indebted to him for the payment of the sum of ILS 650,000, which, contrary to what was stated in the statement of claim, had not been paid to date (paragraph 43 of the statement of defense).