It should be added that it was not claimed , and in any event, it was not proven that Paragon collected debts beyond the balance of the debt owed to the plaintiff or to the company that Shira owed to it.
- In the margins, it should be noted that the claim before me is not a monetary claim, and in any case this court does not constitute an alternative or additional instance, with respect to issues and proceedings that have been discussed or discussed between the parties in the framework of other proceedings, including those in the framework of promissory notes.
Moreover, this judgment does not constitute a decision or a determination as to the extent of the debt of the plaintiff or Shira Company to Paragon, or even a determination according to which the plaintiff or Shira Company are liable for the repayment of this or that individual check.
The matter of the lawsuit before me is with regard to the justification for granting relief of providing accounts, as well as the granting of an injunction whereby Paragon must return to the plaintiff or to a company that fired the exclusive franchise granted by it to any of them.
Discounts and Credits for Surplus and Class B Goods
- According to the plaintiff, Paragon breached the agreement with him when it did not credit him with a total sum of approximately ILS 2 million, for surplus goods or second-class goods supplied by it.
- The plaintiff did not attach any evidence to support his claims regarding the credits that he claimed he was entitled to, let alone in relation to their financial scope (i.e., a sum of at least ILS 2 million); See paragraphs 43 of the statement of claim and paragraphs 43 and 53 of his affidavit).
- No written agreement, correspondence, or record was presented with respect to such summary.
Not a single request was presented by the plaintiff during two and a half years of joint work, concerning the alleged discount/credit.
- I'm awake To attach the invoices as Exhibit 13 (Appendix G to the affidavit The Plaintiff), which showed that Mr. Nahmias was given discounts of 50%. However, this is a limited number of invoices (7 invoices), most of which are from 2008 (with the exception of invoice No. 10229 from August 2011). These invoices, and the assumption given to Mr. Nahmias according to them, do not indicate a sweeping discount of 50% to which the plaintiff or the partnership was entitled.
In an examination of more than is required, I will add and refer the parties to the fact that from the invoice The Unit Asher Attached and refers to For 2011, it appears that the rate of The assumption stated therein is Only 8.73%. - In the margins, it should be noted that the plaintiff did not include in his claim a petition for relief of providing bills in relation to the credits that he claims he is entitled to in respect of surplus goods and Class B, but only in relation to the credits that he claims he received in respect of commissions from the sale to Shufersal (a claim which, as detailed above, I found to be rejected).
Transfer of goods to Mr. Alfasi or anyone on his behalf behind the plaintiff's back
- According to the plaintiff, already in the early stages of the partnership, at the end of 2011 and the beginning of 2012, and later, during 2014, after Mr. Alfasi sold his share in the partnership to the plaintiff and became an employee of Shira Company, Paragon operated behind the plaintiff's back, in cooperation with Mr. Alfasi, and transferred goods to Mr. Alfasi, while obligating the partnership or anyone on its behalf to pay for them (see paragraphs 16 and 50-51 of the plaintiff's affidavit).
- Alfasi denied these allegations and claimed that they never happened (see para. 26 of his affidavit).
- An examination of the evidence presented to me shows that no evidence was presented, even prima facie, indicating the transfer of goods to Mr. Alfasi, while concealing them from the plaintiff, during the period of the partnership, and all the more so of payment for the aforementioned goods through Shira Company;
This is despite the fact that these are serious allegations of theft and fraud, which in view of their criminal nature, the burden of proving them is higher than that required in regular civil proceedings.
- It is not superfluous to note that the plaintiff's own testimony revealed that even after the establishment of Shira in 2012, the partners continued to purchase, sell and order goods even through Shira Marketing, and hence the fact that ordering or supplying goods through Mr. Alfasi or Shira Marketing does not actually benefit or detract from the parties' claims (see paragraph 15 of the plaintiff's affidavit).
- The plaintiff further claimed that even after the end of the partnership period, when he received the franchise in full and Mr. Alfasi worked as an employee of Shira Company, Mr. Alfasi was supplied with goods by Paragon, with the company charging for them.
- In order to prove this claim, the plaintiff attached two delivery notes - one was a delivery note No. 5845 dated August 13, 2014, which allegedly indicates that goods were supplied "for me from Shira Marketing", and the other - a delivery note No. 6077 dated October 31, 2014, which allegedly indicates that goods were supplied to "Shira S. marketing" (Appendix 17 to the plaintiff's exhibits file).
- These delivery notes were not sufficient to corroborate or strengthen the plaintiff's claiMs.
In the case of these cases, Mr. Alfasi testified that they were issued in respect of goods that were transferred to him, through his authorized dealer and paid by him, and all this after Paragon ceased its work with the plaintiff, and the same arose from the invoices that were attached by him (see paragraph 56 and the invoices Appendix 12 to his affidavit).