Caselaw

Civil Case 63480-06-22 A.D. Peleg Consulting and Investments in Tax Appeal v. Splitite Ltd. - part 30

August 10, 2025
Print

I did not find any substance in Peleg's argument – especially since, as appears from the recording of the conversation of September 24, 2019, Peleg was of the opinion that clause 3.1.4 allowed him to convert the commission into shares – a conversion which during this conversation Don objected to and was presented with a representation to Don according to which Peleg was waiving it while changing clause 3.1.2.  Moreover, during the conversation, it became clear to Peleg that Don had deleted the provision of clause 3.1.4 from the current agreement.  In these circumstances, Peleg's claim that he believed that Don agreed to return to the wording of the first agreement, in a manner that also includes clause 3.1.4 – a clause that Peleg believed allowed him to convert – which Don objected to, and moreover, a clause that Don himself omitted from the third agreement.  In light of this, I find it necessary to determine – similar to the determination in the context of the discussion, which refers to the change made by the latter in the third agreement – that Peleg added clause 3.1.4 and deliberately concealed the addition from the discussion, while creating representations against him according to which the only change is in clause 3.1.2 and, moreover, that he waives the right to convert the commission into shares.  As to the discussion, I find it acceptable to accept his testimony on this matter from line 20 on page 101 to line 6 on page 102:

"I didn't even remember that in the first agreement there was clause 3.14.  I'm still living on the subject of agreement No. 3, there's the half, there's no clause 3.14.  Let's move forward, let's take what you deserve and let's release this affair.  Actually, the goal was, take the money from what we agreed in the first agreement; The conversion issue cannot be carried out; And the other half, and that's where the story ended.  Now, the fact that I wrote in the affidavit that I asked to change 3.12 is correct.  Because I said, okay guys, you can't convert the money into options.  But the fact that they brought back 3.14, he wasn't supposed to go back there in the first place."

Previous part1...2930
31...45Next part