"Q. In other words, according to your claim, the partnership also paid 3.75 million for the franchise and for goods?
A. The partnership starts buying goods from this point, i.e., from scratch, 3.75 on the franchise and starts from scratch. I didn't receive it, there is no merchandise that preceded it.
Q. But we know that Nahmias had merchandise in the warehouses.
A. Approx. ILS 300,000 We agreed to that. Without even counting.
Q. Did you pay for the goods?
A. She entered the same pool, and we started selling merchandise through Alfasi's authorized dealer. There was no demand for additional payment for Nahmias's goods."
(p. 50, paras. 13-20 of the minutes of the hearing of December 7, 2022; emphasis not in the original - H.S.).
Later in his testimony, the plaintiff further claimed that the payment of the sum of ILS 3.75 million was a condition for receiving Mr. Nahmias' goods:
"... Pini said that in order to receive Nahmias' goods there is a debt of ILS 3,750,000 that was paid, the cost of Nahmias's goods was not counted at all.
Q. Where did your goods come from?
A. I bought from Nechmias first and paid him and Alfasi also bought from Nechmias..."
(p. 9, paras. 3-8 of the minutes of the hearing of January 23, 2019).
- At this point, I find it necessary to add and clarify that although the plaintiff's testimony claims that the transcript of the conversation that took place between him and Mr. Alfasi on September 19, 2014 shows that Mr. Alfasi admits that a sum of approximately ILS 4 million was paid to Paragon for the purchase of the franchise from Paragon, a perusal of the said transcript shows that it does not include that alleged admission (and all this in relation to the transcript which, in the absence of an attachment of the original recording, has very limited evidentiary weight). All that was found in the transcript was a statement by the plaintiff himself, which ostensibly indicates that Paragon received the sum of ILS 4 million, while it is not at all clear when it received the said sum, by whom and in connection with what was paid. The plaintiff was asked about this in his interrogation and replied that "logic says" that it was paid in connection with the franchise and confirmed that it was his conclusion (see p. 51, paras. 15-23 of the minutes of the hearing of December 7, 2022).
- The plaintiff's testimony indicated that according to his version, it was Mr. Alfasi who was in charge of the accounting with Paragon, and the plaintiff himself did not know how the payments were routed and to what component they were attributed:
"Paragon had checks that I mentioned as personal checks that I gave them, including five checks of 100,000 each that I gave them directly at the time. I transferred some of the payments by the loans I took from banks and friends to transfer to Shira and Alfasi's accounts so that Alfasi would manage Paragon's account for the 3.75 And the income that our partner business had as a result of entering and selling, all the profits remained within the business, And how Alfasi divided the payments to Paragon against the future payments for the goods we received from the moment the partnership began, it was his job. This amount is spread out over the entire period And during that time, I paid through check transfers, loans from friends. I'm not saying I didn't pay. I paid.
Q. I asked a few.
A. The entire sum in the end. I bought Alfasi. Everything."
(p. 51, paras. 3-12 of the minutes of the hearing of December 7, 2022).
- The plaintiff sought to refer to the exhibit to H. of his affidavit, pp. 228-230, which contains indications of various sums that he transferred to the Shira Company, which in his opinion constitute "... Some of the payments are for both the franchise and the ongoing operations..." However, this is a very partial sum, amounting to a few hundred thousand shekels, which cannot be attributed specifically to payment for the concession (see Presented to H. for the plaintiff's affidavit and his testimony at p. 41, paras. 28-30 of the minutes of the hearing).
Thus, for example, even though the partnership agreement was signed in February 2012 (Appendix B to the plaintiff's affidavit), and although the plaintiff in his affidavit describes the purchase of the franchise at the end of 2011 and the beginning of 2012, the first check that was attached as evidence by the plaintiff as payment for the franchise, is a check in which the defendant is Shira Company and bears a date of October 31, 2013, and in any case it is not clear what use was made of that amount.
- Alfasi testified that the sum of ILS 3.75 million was not paid for the concession and that to the best of his knowledge the sums included in Appendix F to the plaintiff's affidavit were paid in connection with Mr. Nahmias's debts to Paragon, and not for a concession, and that these did not rely even on the sum of ILS 700,000 (see paragraph 32B of his affidavit).
He further testified that the transaction was such that they bought new goods from Paragon and marketed it, and at the same time they covered Nahmias's debt, in installments, until the debt was "reset" (see P. 96, paras. 17-25 of the minutes of the hearing).