I also find to accept the summary of Don's approach with regard to the removal of the clause in the third agreement and its addition to the fourth agreement, on page 92, lines 9-12, according to which "...... Understand the situation. I sent Guy the third agreement and there was no clause 3.14 there. Guy sent me the fourth agreement and it was there 3.14. He didn't notice, and I didn't. That's the way it is."
- There is no dispute that subsequently the plaintiff was paid the sum of $250,000 in two installments. The first was for which the plaintiff issued an invoice on September 27, 2019, in which it was written in detail that the payment was in respect of: "Consultation for an IPO 1-2019 in Australia pursuant to a contract (payment 1 of 2)" (Appendix 40 to Peleg's affidavit), the second for which an invoice was issued on October 7, 2019 in which it was recorded that the payment was in respect of: "Consultation for an IPO 1-2019 in Australia under a contract (payment 2 of 2)".
- the legal process;
On February 20, 2020, the plaintiff issued a warning letter to discuss this letter, demanding – for the first time – options for the purchase of shares based on the provision of clause 3.1.4 of the agreement. Thus, the letter claimed that the plaintiff is entitled – in addition to the commission paid to her – options at an exercise price of 0.1329 for the pre-IPO stage, i.e., 2,700,000 options, at an exercise price of AUD 0.2 for the IPO stage.
The plaintiff also claimed that within the framework of the agreement, within 12 months of the first transaction, the company made a second offering – which is an investment transaction that meets the conditions set forth in clause 3.1.3 of the agreement, with all that this entails – and therefore claimed that it is entitled to the commission specified in clauses 3.1.4 and 3.1.2. In other words, for a monetary commission as well as options to purchase shares at the full value of the financial commission.
Don responded to the demand letter on May 4, 2020 (Appendix 42 to Peleg's affidavit) and in his reply claimed that the company was not obligated to Peleg even a single shekel in accordance with the agreement. In the letter, Don also confirmed that: "As the company's CEO and director, I had all the authority and permission to sign the agreement and approve the engagement with your client."