Shohat further testified that in addition to his role as a salesman, he was also appointed to the position of IBM Product Manager at Matrix (p. 6864, s. 21 - p. 6865, 4, p. 6697, s. 18-19, he participated in both salesmen meetings and product managers' meetings, p. 6700, s. 26-27). As IBM's product manager, Shohat was the one who was in contact with the manufacturer, he assisted other salespeople in contacting and working with IBM (p. 6865, paras. 3-6). As IBM's product manager, his role was to develop the relationship with IBM, to open doors for the sales people in the Matrix vis-à-vis IBM, to find new opportunities, to assist the salespeople in terms of configurations, to take care of the hands, etc. (p. 6698, paras. 7-28). As an IBM product manager, Shochat was compensated for the sales of IBM products, beyond the remuneration for his sales as a salesperson (p. 6697, paras. 31-33).
In its summaries, Matrix emphasized, inter alia, that Shochat was a junior salesman to whom no employees were subordinate (p. 6848, s. 21), that there were about 30 salespeople in Matrix at the time (p. 6847, s. 6-9), that his powers in making bids were limited and that he required approvals, for example, in order to submit a tender (p. 6867, s. 10); and that some IBM people remembered him only vaguely (Orshizer, p. 2595, paras. 10-23).
I do not believe that Matrix's claims have anything to change. The overall picture that emerged from the evidence is that Shochat was a representative of Matrix and its contact person vis-à-vis clients under his responsibility, including IAI; that he acted with the customers, including to close deals; that he was the one who led the sales proceedings with the customers on behalf of Matrix; that he had knowledge and experience in IBM products and coordinated the activity regarding these products in Matrix; that he had discretion in making price quotes, so that in the vast majority of cases he was not required to approve for this purpose; and that his proposals were made in the name of Matrix, obligated and acquitted. In this situation, in accordance with the functional test, taking into account the role and powers of Shohat, Shohat is an organ of a matrix and his actions should be regarded as those of a matrix insofar as the bids for a civil appeal are concerned (see also the Ben Dror (District) case at paragraphs 840-842; and see a similar determination with respect to a marketing person and a sales agent, at paragraph 912 there; although there are certain differences between the cases there and our case; in view of Shohat's authority to give quotations and the discretion given to him with regard to price quotes, I do not believe that the differences pointed out by Matrix change the conclusion).