"please approve the attached agreement for the finder… base on what we spoke that you don’t want to expose previous an valid one"
The content of the message reads:
"Can you please send me the CLA again so I would sign.
And please signed what I have sent you and I will send as well so we have the support for the bank.
Please let me know what and how you want to do the transaction"
There is no dispute that Don responded to this correspondence without changing it: attached and signed and attached the agreement signed by him (Appendix 19 to Peleg's affidavit).
Peleg also wrote on October 28, 2018 in a WhatsApp message to Don (attached as part of Appendix 20 to Peleg's affidavit (on page 149) at 9:23 a.m.: "Morning Or Gil, I checked again with my accountant and with the agreements we have, the old and the new (which does not replace the old but helps you with the elements)..."
In addition, Peleg refers to his e-mail message to Don dated October 28, 2018 (at 10:05), in which he noted, among other things:
"following conversation I had with my accouter we must do transaction as the finder fee cash base on the agreement we have (original 225+225 which wasn’t canceled and still valid, for you made another copy of only 230 but its not instead) due to that the CLA is under Guy Peleg and not O.D. Peleg"
There is no dispute that following this e-mail message, it was written as follows in the WhatsApp correspondence that was exchanged between Peleg and Dan:
Don (at 10:17): "And besides, read the email I sent me and realize that you have just created a problem for all of us."
Peleg: "I understand, but we have to tell them the matter because the agreements are different, there's a payment, and it's one agreement with the company, and there's an agreement with Guy Peleg's loan. The shares are registered on a person who did not do the service, but the company did."
Don: Now I understand your pressure not to be restricted, but what you've just done creates a personal problem for me."
Already at this stage, I will note that in the framework of his affidavit, Don does not refer at all to all the correspondence as presented in Peleg's affidavit and does not explain why the words were written as written. I will also note now – as a prelude to the latter – that in practice, from the circumstances as detailed below – as well as from the evidence and testimonies (and in particular Don's testimony) – it clearly emerges that this agreement did not show a genuine agreement to waive half of the monetary commission that was agreed upon and that it was signed only for the needs of Don, who at the end of the day did not deny the plaintiff's right to receive the full financial commission. Notwithstanding what is stated in this Agreement. Thus, in the course of his testimony, Dawn confirmed that he had asked Peleg to pay him the second half of the commission in installments because the company had a cash flow problem, against an invoice regarding the provision of advice (see his testimony from line 19 on page 44 to line 5 on page 45). Don further confirmed that already in April 2019 there was no argument regarding the actual entitlement to the second half of the commission, but only about the spread of the fee (see his testimony on page 46, lines 1-14) and finally, he confirmed that the second agreement does not reflect the agreements between the parties and that he never denied that he had to pay the other half of the commission (see his testimony on page 73, lines 14-17, and yes, On page 76, lines 14-16)
- The third agreement between the parties;
As appears from the correspondence between Don and Fayette – which was attached as Appendix 28 to Peleg's affidavit – Don asked the company to approve the contractual system between Peleg and the company, and this correspondence was exchanged between Don and Fayette in this regard, in the form of e-mail messages.