Then it is written - "There is one exception that in the absence of legal rights, customer relationship exchange transactions provide evidence that the entity can still control." In other words, if I summarize the standard, Standard 30 says, control of the ordinary, you need legal rights.
A: Contract. Yes.
Q: Contract.
A: That's right.
Q: We didn't have it, did it?
A: That's right."
The opinion of Adv. Eden, the defendant's expert, also implies that there was no ability to prevent others from using the resource (at p. 98 of the defendants' affidavits of May 15, 2025):
"5.5 There is no dispute that the growers who received the payments were not legally obligated to export their products through the company in the future, and they were not prevented from exporting their products through a competing company after receiving payments from the company. However, past experience (since 1988) shows that in general, the growers who received the payments continued to work with the company."
In addition, Gottlieb's affidavit shows that in practice it turned out that the payments did not prevent the growers from leaving (in paragraph 200 of his affidavit):
"200. As stated above, in 2010 the company's management changed. At the same time or close thereafter, veteran growers, who had been loyal customers of the company for many years, slowly began to sever their business ties with the company. Thus, it turned out that the incentives do not have the power to ensure that the growers remain customers/suppliers of the company."
- It also emerges from the general case law that the basic rule distinguishes between a certain "future right" that constitutes an asset, and a mere "expectation" that is not considered an asset. This is the case in Writ of Execution Law (Civil Appeal 3553/00 Issachar Aloni v. Sand Tal Mixed Institutes Ltd., 57(3) 580 at para. 7 (2003); Civil Appeal Authority 8622/13 National Insurance Institute v. Rachela Shahar, at para. 14 [Nevo] (September 7, 2016)); Future Building Rights (Civil Appeal 36/11 Israel Postal Company in Tax Appeal v. Hefzibah Housing and Development Ltd., at paras. 42-44 [Nevo] (September 3, 2015); Avi Weinroth Property Law - Pirkei Yesod 387 - 388 (2024)); Expectation of inheritance and overdrafting in the bank (Civil Appeal 9575/02 The Custodian of Absentee Property v. Ismat Bahai (Ezel) at para. 9 [Nevo] (July 7, 2010)); The chance to receive money alone cannot be foreclosed (Yehoshua Weissman, Property Law - General Part 372 (1997)); The same applies in the context of customer relations (Civil Case (Hai District) 24893-12-10 Shlomo Edri Electrical Services in a Tax Appeal v. Shimon Edri, at para. 93 [Nevo] (March 20, 2016)).
- The rule that distinguishes between a certain right and a mere expectation also applies to "hope" that an old client will come back to me the next time, when we are not tied to the contract. This is also evident from the discussion of CPA Gottlieb's cross-examination (Transcript, p. 963, paras. 5-20):
"A: Listen, when you have a discount on the past trade, it should be recorded at P&L. When I come and tell you to the garage if you come again, I'll give you a discount, yes. I want to incentivize you, maybe I want to cheer you up, but I can't go to the grocery store with that. The farmer had to go to the grocery store, so he got money. And when I pay money, it's different than if you come again so I'll give you a discount. These are not examples.