With regard to goods in the sum of ILS 450,000, he testified The plaintiff that this It was transferred to a company called Best Marketing, which transferred the goods to Mr. Alfasi, and that both the delivery notes and the tax invoices were issued by Shira to Best Marketing (see p. 47, paras. 7-13 of the minutes of the hearing of December 7, 2022).
The plaintiff was asked how long the goods were transported And he replied "For about two weeks or two months" (p. 47, paras. 14-15 of the minutes of the hearing of December 7, 2022). He then testified that: "...As soon as he confirmed that the balance of the money in the sum of 450,000 was in the merchandise, he received the goods.
- When did he receive it?
A. In the signature.
Q. When.
A. During 2014, he receives the goods as agreed"
(p. 47, s. 28 - p. 48, s. 2 of the minutes of the hearing of December 7, 2022). - When the plaintiff was asked how his testimony regarding the payment of the consideration by way of the transfer of goods over time is consistent with what is stated in the share transfer agreement, from which it emerged that Mr. Alfasi had already confirmed on January 1, 2014 that he had already received the full consideration, the plaintiff replied as follows:
"Alfasi's verification confirms the receipt of the money and goods. The lawyer's verification means that it is correct, and even if he received some of the goods later, it does not mean that I did not fulfill my obligation...... But there's a reason Alfasi signed, because he was sure that he was getting the entire amount that was agreed between us.
Q. Receive, receive, receive
A. It's all together. 200,000 in cash he took, and 450,000 in merchandise he turned into money." (p. 48, paras. 26-35 of the minutes of the hearing).
These statements made by the plaintiff in the course of his cross-examination were sufficient to give further validity to the unreasonableness of his version.
- The plaintiff did not explain how the fact that he claimed that he paid Mr. Alfasi for his share in the partnership by supplying goods is consistent with his claim that Mr. Alfasi was prevented from competing with him and selling Paragon goods, in view of the plaintiff's being an exclusive franchisee. When asked about this in his interrogation, he replied that for this reason the transaction was made through Best Marketing and was limited to the said amount. This did not provide an answer to the question, and even the reference to the share transfer agreement did not clarify the issue.
- In the margins, it should be noted that I am aware that up to the date of filing the claim and the counterclaim, in 2018, no claim was raised by Mr. Alfasi regarding the payment of the sum of ILS 650,000. This factual fact was sufficient to raise questions regarding the later claims of the counter-plaintiff.
I also considered the fact that a deed of transfer of shares was submitted to the Registrar of Companies, from which it emerged that the shares were transferred without consideration (Exhibit No. 158 of the plaintiff's exhibits), and Mr. Alfasi even confirmed his signature on this document.