At the same time, despite the claim that the defendant withdrew goods from the warehouses from time to time, as aforesaid, as needed, no evidence was presented as to the quantity of goods withdrawn from the warehouse from time to time by the defendant, and it was expected that the plaintiff would also present this information in order to substantiate and prove her version regarding the balance of the goods in the warehouses and its alleged value. However, the plaintiff did not do so, even though it is reasonable to assume that this information is in her possession, and at the very least, she should have had it in her possession, as expected of companies that conduct themselves properly.
- The plaintiff also did not bring any evidence of the defendant's ordering of the goods.
The plaintiff relied on the invoices that she said showed the scope of the order and presented a business mechanism whereby she ordered goods in the amount of approximately ILS 2 million and even much more, based on oral conversations. The business mechanism presented by Mr. Meisler is inconsistent with the conduct expected of a business in the alleged scopes.
Mr. Meisler testified that on the basis of oral agreements with the defendant and conversations with her, they actually purchased goods worth ILS 2 million (in the transcript, pp. 40, 8-30). Mr. Hodis was also asked to explain in his testimony whether there was a written order, and he referred to the tax invoices and claimed that they were both an agreement for all intents and purposes and also the delivery note. Later on, he was asked to clarify how the plaintiff knew how to order the specific goods detailed in the invoices, and he replied that everything was done during conversations in meetings, and that they were also with her in Georgia, and that she knew their goods and used the goods for the value of ILS 200,000 (in the transcript, pp. 79, 26-31 and 80, 1-11).
The plaintiff did not present any agreement or order for goods of this magnitude, and it is unacceptable that a company that is properly managed would precede and issue tax invoices for transactions of such magnitude on the basis of an oral undertaking, and will bear the financing of the transactions by way of the actual purchase of the goods for the purpose of receiving discounts without having any documentation thereof, even by way of a passing record for the issuance of invoices.