Later in his interrogation, Mr. Netanel claims that he never denied his obligation to build a separation wall, at Mr. Appel's request, as he says, while he does not relate to his contractual obligation, moving on to his personal commitment to Mr. Appel. According to him, the walls are being constructed in accordance with the demand of the tenants of the complex, even though we are dealing with the plaintiff that she is a purchaser of the property and not a tenant (pp. 24, 14 to 25, para. 18).
- Netanel refers to the allegations regarding the lack of connection of the stores to electricity, as they arise from a letter sent by Ms. Appel on August 13, 2019 (Exhibit A/1), after the initial delivery protocol with the defendant's foreman, Nissim. Mr. Netanel is also addressed to an email sent by Adv. Braunstein on the matter from the following day, August 14, 2019, in which the latter clarifies that Mr. Netanel disagrees with Ms. Appel's demands, and at the same time she clarifies that Mr. Netanel has gone on vacation and will deal with the matters detailed in the letter upon his return from vacation. Mr. Netanel himself clarifies in response to the cross-examination questions that he apparently went on vacation at the time (p. 29, s. 18). He goes on to claim that it is possible that Adv. Braunstein wrote the answer without consulting him (ibid., paras. 37-38), and finally he clarifies (also to the court's question) that he was abroad, but he sought to address the merits of the matter and the merits of the arguments upon his return from abroad, in an attempt to appease the plaintiff, despite the fact that he disagrees with some of the requirements (p. 30, S. 13-33).
- In a similar manner, Mr. Netanel also responds with respect to the claims that arise from the letter (Exhibit A/1) regarding the lack of plaster and paint for the store (p. 32, paras. 4-8). According to Mr. Netanel, these works were not carried out, because the plaintiff did not demand to be performed. All this, despite what was stated in the aforementioned letter. Later in his remarks, Mr. Netanel tries to explain that the matter depends on the tenant of the store (ibid., paras. 23-24). Needless to say, Mr. Netanel's words are inconsistent with the extensive correspondence on the matter, as well as constitute an expansion of the front and a developing version.
- Netanel also admits that the defendant used all the stores (both of Dior A.P.Z. and the store in question) in order to store all of the defendant's construction materials, in view of the rental of the offices on the upper floors of the project to Elbit (p. 36, paras. 11-16; and p. 38, paras. 10-11). In this context, I will refer to the explicit words of Mr. Netanel (at p. 37, paras. 13-14) as follows:
"The point is, the point is that on the premises of the shops there were goods from the upper floors yes, I'm not denying it."