Adv. Brotfeld: Where do you see it, let's see?
Witness, Mr. Matzliah: A. 26.
Adv. Brotfeld: Look at A. 26, this is his request that you submit a bid for a tender by the Israel Police that you made a mistake and submitted in it, and that's why you lost the deal.
The witness, Mr. Matzliah: A. I don't know if it's the same date.
Adv. Brottfeld: The Israel Police, you see, he tells you to submit proposals and we know,
The witness, Mr. Matzliah: Dror Dror,
Adv. Brothfeld: Write a pricing for the Israel Police, that we will go over the numbers, of your letter in an email from 2021?
The witness, Mr. Matzliah: Dror, A. I don't know if it's the same pricing, but you can go check and it could be the same pricing one thing. Two, I know I also told Karin Shimshon that I was wrong in this very specific pricing. And thirdly, this WhatsApp correspondence starts with Smadar Sharir between 5 p.m. on April 20, yes, it apparently announced that it was before the pricing that there is an offer or the pricing is for gloves and surgical masks, it is not possible to submit one of the items, and then Tsafrir writes that there are no gloves and there will be no gloves. In other words, Tsafrir's answer was to Smadar and not to me, and he writes, "There is no and there will be."
(p. 84 of the transcript of May 12, 2024, paras. 14-31).
- If so, it is not possible to learn from this announcement about Tsafrir's instruction not to act for the sale of gloves. Moreover, the proposal prepared by Avi vis-à-vis Hadassah from August 2020 (Exhibit P/5) testifies, that the plaintiff continued to act on this issue and that there was no sweeping instruction on the part of Tsafrir on the matter.
- We will also add that Avi's changing versions regarding transparency with respect to the email box, when in his affidavit he did not mention any knowledge or confirmation on the part of Tsafrir, and only in his later testimony did he raise for the first time a claim that Tsafrir saw the transactions "online" (p. 34 of the minutes of May 12, 2024, paras. 7-29), strengthen the conclusion that no concrete evidence was brought indicating Tsafrir's informed and explicit consent to the transfer of the plaintiff's customers' transactions to Iris Marketing and Yaakov. Or real-time knowledge that Avi's transactions and emails are indeed monitored and controlled by Tsafrir in a way that allows him to attribute information on the subject. On the contrary, my father's evolving version of the matter, along with the lack of real-time documentation, shows that no consent was given.
- It should also be emphasized that according to Yaakov's version, Iris Marketing's main activity is exporting to Africa. Yaakov adds that Iris Marketing hardly works with the Israeli market, which he says "has a reputation for crooks and thieves." He further noted that the lawsuit filed against him is proof that he should not have entered the Israeli market at all (paragraph 4 of Yaakov's affidavit). When asked in his testimony about the subscriber in his affidavit, he clarified that he did not deal with gloves or masks, and in fact did not deal with anything in Israel in the past. It also emerges that when he did begin to deal with this in Israel, according to him, in most cases it was done through my father (p. 31 of the minutes of May 30, 2024, paras. 33-35). From here, we will turn to an examination of the various transactions that were detailed in detail in the parties' pleadings.
Transactions transferred to the plaintiff's customers