In the summaries it was claimed that since defendant 5 was not engaged in marketing the products, he rented it to the Piccolo company-Line: The right to import and market Opsa products in Israel, for a fixed fee "Regardless of Piccolo's sales results in Israel." The condition was that Piccolo-Line will purchase the quantity that defendant 5 undertook to purchase, as a condition for receiving the agency. The undertaking to Ofsa was that of Defendant 5 and not of Piccolo-Line, and defendant 5 had an interest in representing the manufacturer, in the form of Opsa. This means that in certain matters the defendant represented Opsa towards Piccolo-Lane, and also represented Piccolo-Lane towards Opsa, and in fact his role was that of a mediator.
Defendant 5's argument is that he "He didn't manage Piccolo Lane, didn't control it, didn't operate it and didn't get a salary from it just like he didn't do the same with Ofsa". Regarding Opsa defendant 5 was one of its franchisees (i.e., a buyer) and in the case of Piccolo-The line was a supplier (i.e., a seller), from whom the company bought the right to import and distribute Opsa products in Israel, for a defined period.
The role of defendant 5 was to contact Ofsa and order the products, in accordance with Yigal Fadlon's requests and according to his needs, with the order having to be made on a special form from Ofsa. Afterwards, conversations and correspondence were held, with the aim of summarizing the quantities and prices of the products that Repesa would ship, and the cost of shipping. It was in his interest to make sure that all the processes were carried out properly, but this did not make him the manager of the piccolo line or the person who controls it. All the documents show that the activity of defendant 5 was that of an agent who was not engaged in the sale, and if this cannot be determined positively, then this version meets the test of feasibility, and therefore it cannot be said that the explanations of defendant 5 are unacceptable.