He further testified that the defendant's debts were created because they allowed the defendant to postpone the payments when she could not meet them, and therefore the debt continued to grow (in the transcript, p. 69, paras. 24-28). In addition, he testified that they initially sold the defendant goods worth approximately ILS 2,040,000, and the defendant actually received merchandise worth approximately ILS 204,000 to the clinic and also paid for it, so that the balance of the goods is stored in the plaintiff's warehouses (in the transcript at pp. 66, paras. 21-3 and at pp. 68, paras. 9-17).
However, despite the claims and testimonies regarding goods found in the plaintiff's warehouses for the defendant in the value of the defendant's checks, the plaintiff did not bring any evidence to prove that merchandise worth more than ILS 1.6 million was indeed found in the warehouses.
- The plaintiff also did not bring evidence that she ordered the quantity of goods for the defendant from the manufacturer at the value claimed.
In this context, Mr. Meisler testified that the plaintiff purchased the products from the manufacturer and as evidence an example of an invoice appearing in which the purchase of goods in a quantity of about 3,000 products appeared, and explained that the price was deleted from her for reasons of commercial secrecy since they were not willing to show the cost price from the manufacturer. However, he said that the specific invoice that was attached was in the sum of ILS 700,000 (in the transcript, pp. 42, paras. 26-28). Even if I assume that this is indeed the value of the goods ordered, this does not indicate its value to the defendant in the absence of any evidence of calculation between the parties.
- Even in the report of the manufacturer's accounting ledger that the plaintiff attached (Appendix 8A to Mr. Meisler's affidavit of the main witness), there is no information from which it is possible to learn about the quantity or value of the goods that the plaintiff ordered from the manufacturer for the defendant. Meisler testified that the prices and the total amount for the transaction were also deleted here for reasons of commercial secrecy (in the transcript, pp. 43, 19-31 and at 44, 29).
Mr. Meisler's affidavit was also attached to a document that lists in the table the invoices for goods ordered for the defendant as claimed, as opposed to the dates of the orders for the goods made by the manufacturer (Appendix 8 to Meisler's affidavit). However, this document also does not indicate whether all the goods that are the subject of the invoices were ordered from the manufacturer or whether part of it and what its value is, since all that is stated in this document with respect to the manufacturer is the date of the order from the manufacturer and nothing more. It should be noted that this is a table that gathers information that appears to be partial information, and in any event, it was not clarified in the affidavit who edited the table, and the editor of the table was not even brought to testify. Thus, in fact, the plaintiff did not present me with any convincing evidence from which it is possible to learn the quantity of goods purchased from the manufacturer for the defendant and its value.
- Beyond the testimonies of Mr. Meisler and Mr. Hodis, the plaintiff did not bring any other witnesses on her behalf, including Mr. Abu Razeq, who is the manufacturer of the alleged goods with whom she contracted.
It was the defendant who insisted on Mr. Abu Razeq's summons and he appeared to testify.