She also claimed that she was not supplied with merchandise for the checks and that she never ordered or received goods in the amount of millions of shekels from the plaintiff and does not owe her anything. In this context, the defendant claimed that the plaintiff had issued fictitious invoices for goods that had not been delivered to her.
- The plaintiff claimed that the checks were given to her by the defendant on her initiative and with her consent.
With regard to the allegations of forgery and theft, the plaintiff claimed that they were baseless claims that the defendant retracted in the course of the hearing in the objection to the check in the amount of ILS 1.6 million (in opposition to the execution of the deed 19509-05-17). She also claimed that she had sent the defendant warning letters regarding the deposit of the check in the amount of ILS 1.6 million, and the defendant ignored them, so that she knew about the check.
The plaintiff further claimed that the defendant did not comply with the agreements between them and did not pay her the consideration for the goods she purchased from her and for services provided to her in the total amount of more than ILS 1 million. According to the plaintiff, the goods in dispute were also ordered for the defendant and are stored in the plaintiff's warehouses without receiving any consideration from the defendant for it.
According to the plaintiff, the defendant never sent any demand or complaint regarding the non-transfer of the goods to her, and she was the one who requested to postpone the payments for the goods. In addition, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant deducted taxes from the invoices she received from the plaintiff for the goods. Thus, according to the plaintiff, the basis for the defendant's claim about fictitious transactions was omitted.
- It should be noted that the parties also raised claims regarding the breach of a partnership agreement between them regarding the operation of a clinic in Rishon LeZion, the investment in the clinic, the remuneration for this cooperation, and the distribution of profits. Each side detailed its claims on this matter and leveled accusations at the other side. However, in practice, the statement of claim was not amended, no contractual cause was added to it, no relief was required beyond the amounts of the checks, no evidence was heard regarding a dispute so that it was not clarified, and there is no determination in the judgment on this matter.
Discussion and Decision