Adv. Fruchtman: I didn't understand, is this legal defense clause written in the contract?
The witness, Mr. Oz: There was a contract signed with them on the day the three of them signed the contract with us. After a few days they announced that it wasn't happening, everything disappeared and the story was over. There was nothing.
(p. 86)
In other words, the defendants knew that the defendant's transition to the defendant was liable to give rise to a claim against them.
- The evidence showed that on May 22, the defendant and two other employees of the plaintiff signed an agreement with the defendant.
- There is no dispute that Lankri and Boustani announced their resignation from the plaintiff after they had already agreed with the defendant on their employment. The defendant negotiated with the defendant together with these employees.
- Apparently, the defendant has not yet signed, and therefore both the defendant and Yogev Oz testify: "The agreement signed by both parties, my legal one, was signed in June" (p. 73, line 25 of the defendant's testimony) and "there was a contract signed with them on the day the three of them signed the contract with us. After a few days they announced that this was not happening, everything disappeared and the story was over" but they both confirm that meetings were held between the parties as early as March 22 (p. 88, line 28 of Yogev Oz's testimony and p. 46, line 24 of the defendant's testimony) and that a meeting was also held on April 22 (p. 70, line 39). Therefore, from March 2022, the defendant conducted negotiations in preparation for concluding an agreement between them.
- The defendants acted with the knowledge that they were not acting properly. This arises from the concealment of the employment agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff, which required the intervention of the court in its discovery, and in addition, the agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff's 3 employees and the defendant, which is relevant to understanding the situation in real time, was not disclosed and its exact content is unknown, even though it is relevant to the lawsuit. If he had been presented as evidence, he would have supported the prosecution, otherwise why was he hidden?!
- Only following the court's decision was the agreement presented, but the agreement, which was signed in the defendant's handwriting together with the other 2 employees in May 2022, was not presented. The expulsion agreement is signed by the defendant with a digital signature and does not bear the date of its signature as is customary, but only the date of its entry into force on June 20, 2022:
Adv. Fruchtman: Come back for a moment, you just told us that on the day the three of you signed the contract with you, right? Because a minute ago he said he didn't sign a contract.