The plaintiff testified to this:
Adv. Weiner:... Is it true that in most joint companies one signature would not have been enough, a joint signature was needed between you and Mr. Leibowitz or by someone on your behalf and who on behalf of Mr. Leibowitz?
The witness, Mr. Peretz: It wasn't something permanent, it used to be like this and once it was like that, there was nothing permanent.
(p. 135 of the transcript, paras. 12-15).
The problem is that Harush testified on behalf of the plaintiff and confirmed that the signing rights in Uden Entrepreneurship were indeed as appearing in N/2 - the signature of both parties and/or anyone on their behalf (p. 24 of the transcript, paras. 30-34 and p. 25, paras. 1-9).
- Odan Services and Odan Entrepreneurship are the main companies, although of course not the only ones, in which the plaintiff and defendant 1 conducted their businesses, and nevertheless they found to act in connection with the signing rights in which a practice is not characteristic of the partnership and is inconsistent with the rule set forth in section 14 of the Ordinance.
- The plaintiff claimed in paragraph 41.f of his summaries that defendant 1 testified that the plaintiff approved the withdrawal of any sum from the companies, was a partner in their accounts and signed checks and execution orders, even though he was not an officer in them. From here, he sought to learn that this is a partnership relationship "in which each party must approve the expenses of the partnership." This argument does not help the plaintiff. Both parties acted in the manpower corporations as their own, signed checks and the like, even though they were not registered as shareholders or officers in them, while disguising their control of them through various tricks, and therefore the indictment was also filed against them. As noted, there is no connection between the fictitious nature of the manpower corporations and the partnership's claim.
- In paragraph 55 of his summaries, the plaintiff tried to add regarding the right of the parties to bind each other, while referring to paragraphs 27, 28 and 31 of the affidavit of defendant 1. I have examined these sections and found no basis for the plaintiff's claim:
In these sections, defendant 1 notes that the plaintiff approved any financial expenditure in the manpower corporations and had signatory rights in the services and development and in the bank accounts of the corporations, gave instructions for money transfers, was in direct contact with the service providers and was involved in proceedings with the authorities. There is no statement in these sections that the plaintiff was authorized to do so alone and to obligate defendant 1 to do so. There is no dispute that the plaintiff was involved in the economic management of the parties' business. As presented above, the signatures of both parties were required in order to bind Odan Services and Odan Entrepreneurship, so this is not an indication of a partnership under section 14 of the Ordinance.