Saul testified during his interrogation: "Q. You saw printouts of the cash registers every day. Were you 30 days in June [June 15, before the concession agreement and the sale agreement - Y.G.] were signed? A. Yes. Q. Were you at the end of the day, every day at the end of the day at the business [at the café - Y.G.]? A. I was also during the day. Q. You were in business... On these 30 days in June [June 15 - Y.G.]? A. Yes" [p. 479 of the transcript line 32 to page 480 of the transcript line 5].
Third, it has not been proven that the data presented in N/3 were misleading data that is not true.
Saul claimed in his testimony: "Q. How do you know that the data in the profit and loss statement [Exhibit N/3] is incorrect? A. Because the reality [profit and loss data of Sol after it received the stake in the café on August 15] was different. Q. It is possible that in practice the data is correct [when the partnership operated the café - Y.G.], but afterwards there were losses [to Sol from August 15 onwards - Y.G.], from where can the court learn that the data in the N/3 profit and loss report that was presented to you was false? A. Because if they were real - the café [at the time when Sol operated it - Y.G.] would not have lost money" [p. 380 of the transcript, lines 7-14].
Saul was 25 years old, and had no experience in running a coffee shop. The fact that Saul lost money in operating the café does not indicate that the figures presented by the partnership, in relation to the previous period in which it operated the café, were incorrect.
Sol admitted in his interrogation at p. 479 of the transcript, lines 5-27, that Sol had "more or less the same income" when it operated the café [which were prior to the partnership, when the partnership operated the café - Y.G.).
Saul was also able to get data on the café's revenues from the June 15 cash register printouts, which he reviewed at the end of each day during that month, before signing the franchise agreement and the sale agreement.