Subsequently, Ackerman and Peleg examine the wording of the agreements that are placed before them. Ackerman asks Peleg whether the conversion clause exists in all the agreements, to which Peleg replies, after reviewing the agreements: "This is the agreement. This clause," Ackerman asks: "Is the conversion clause 3.2?"To this, Peleg replies: "Clauses 3.1.3 and 3.1.4", Ackerman adds and asks what the clauses stipulate, and Peleg replies: "3.1.4 I have options, I have all my money back according to the terms that the money arrived" Ackerman asks whether this clause appears in the second agreement, Peleg replies that in the first yes, but in the second agreement: "The second part does not appear at all. So there is no conversion, but there is another section of conversion." Ackerman asks: "What name does he say?" And Peleg replies: "I can convert all my Finder mouth." Ackman: "Yes. But if you got 230 on the second, it means that. And Peleg says: "But he also pays me 250, he already says that's it. So I can say OK. I gave up this section of conversion, but I didn't give up on this section. So it's not by 16 cents, it's by 20 cents.".
Ackerman says: " You don't have. He'll bring the 250, it wasn't... It's a consulting agreement, right? The second agreement was a consultation agreement. Right? It wasn't a Finder Pie, it was a consulting agreement, how do you want to convert a consulting agreement? That will be his claim."
Ackerman asks, "Where are the other clauses that can be requested for another IPO?" to which Peleg replies: "Here is 3.1.3., Ackerman asks: "And what is 3.1.4" and Peleg replies: "It's options." Ackerman: "Options for what? Peleg: "Options for 16 cents, for 20 cents, to convert all the money we received into shares."
As an interim summary of this stage, I will already note that the conversation between Ackerman and Peleg focuses on the possibility of converting the second half of the commission into shares, in view of the problem that stems from the fact that the second half of the commission is not mentioned in the second agreement, in which there is the possibility of conversion according to clause 3.1.2. In the conversation, which takes place only between Ackerman and Peleg, Peleg clarifies to Ackerman that there is another clause that allows conversion – clause 3.1.4 – and that this clause also allows the conversion of the commission to which the plaintiff is entitled to shares, but at a rate of 20 cents and not 16 cents. As a preamble to the latter, I will note that in my opinion, the documentation of these words, which are exchanged between Ackerman and Peleg, is important, since it is capable of revealing the intention and interpretation given by Peleg in real time to the clause in dispute, as well as with regard to the scope of the disputes between the parties. With regard to this, it emerges from the aforesaid that Peleg himself relates to clause 3.1.4 as a conversion clause, which allows him, according to his approach, to "convert all the money we received into shares", i.e., he himself does not see this clause as a clause that grants, in addition to the commission, options to purchase the shares at the full value of the commission, but only as a clause that allows the conversion of the commission that was received into shares. This is made clear in the conversation between Ackerman and Peleg, where Peleg emphasizes that he can say that he has waived clause 3.1.2 of the 16-cent conversion, but he has not given up the option of converting to 20 cents. Moreover, when Ackerman asks Peleg, "We have already done half of it," Peleg replies – "Correct" – that is, confirms that the conversion requested is only for the second half of the commission, since the first one has already been converted according to 3.1.2. The aforesaid strengthens the determination that the intention in clause 3.1.4 is not to options at full commission value, but only to the right to convert the commission actually received, half of which has already been converted into shares. I will note that in the course of his testimony, Ackerman was asked to refer to this part of the conversation and admitted that insofar as Peleg referred to clause 3.1.4, he made a mistake (see page 71, lines 7-9) or used incorrect terminology (see line 22 on page 73 to line 1 on page 74)