....
The witness, Mrs. Harush: So I knew that if it was something to do with Tov Gal then it was only Toby and if it had something to do with Oden or Schneider it was both.
Adv. Weiner: You say by the cross-section in the companies.
The witness, Mrs. Harush: That's right.
(p. 27 of the transcript, paras. 4-13).
- Harush also described the relationship as "sitting together and having discussions about all kinds of things" (p. 27 of the transcript). In other words, a "partnership" in Harush's eyes is a joint business activity, regardless of the corporate structure. Since shareholders in a company also act in a similar manner, this does not support a partnership relationship.
- Biton's testimony: In the affidavit, this witness did not even claim that the plaintiff and defendant 1 were partners, but that they were "full managers" in all matters and that they had equal signature rights as far as she was concerned. The affidavit does not strengthen the partnership's version. Biton did not change the picture in her interrogation:
The witness, Mrs. Biton: I received instructions from both of them, approvals from both of them, whoever was in the field and I had to approve the transfer of payments, the same thing.
Adv. Glazner: Yes, but what does it mean to have equal signing rights? Any of them could have signed and that obligates the company?
The witness, Ms. Biton: As far as I knew, yes.
Adv. Glazner: But as far as we know about the rights, there were signature rights in both Schneider and Oden Logistics Services, according to which there were signatory groups in the companies.
The witness, Ms. Biton: I was not involved in this...
(p. 31 of the transcript, s. 31 - p. 32 of the transcript, s. 4).
Go out and learn, the witness did not know exactly what the signing rights in the companies were and what they meant, so her testimony does not support the plaintiff's claim.
- Zafrani's testimony: This witness claimed in his affidavit that the plaintiff and defendant 1 were partners who operated through companies. There are no real indications in his affidavit to support this.
Zafrani explicitly admitted in his interrogation that there was no meaning to the term "partners" that he used in his affidavit: "All the agreements that existed between the partners or not partners or I don't know what to call it... not proficient in them" (p. 65 of the transcript, paras. 13-16).