Finally, Zeiger's version that he understood that these were price estimates that the competitors could bid for a civil appeal also contradicts the claims that Harel's win was guaranteed. As long as the win is guaranteed, and as long as the prices submitted by the competitors are meaningless, what is the point of estimating the prices of the competitors?
This explanation of Zeiger and the aforesaid arguments of Zeiger and Harel must therefore be rejected.
- The claim that Zeiger understood that he was referring to the prices at which Harel offers competitors to purchase the equipment from it -
We saw above that the email correspondence that Gilad sent to Zeiger with prices and quotes for Levi and Triple C revolved around coordination prices, i.e., the prices that the other suppliers would be asked to submit in their bids to the financier.
We are now concerned with the claim that this is not how Zeiger understood the matter, and the second explanation given in this context as if he thought that these were purchase prices from Harel to competitors, i.e., the prices at which Harel offered competitors to buy the equipment from it.
Both these arguments should be rejected and this explanation should not be accepted. He does not agree with the documents and evidence, and here too Zeiger's testimony was difficult and unreliable.
In the emails that Gilad sent to Zeiger, the competitors' prices were listed as "CCC=$364,691", "WE=$357,646", "HAREL=$332,578", and appropriate price quotes were attached (P/116, and see also P/352, P/118, P119). The price quotes were sent in a format consistent with the submission of a price quote for a civil appeal (similar, for example, to P/112) with the details of the "IAI price", in a manner that clearly indicates that the prices of the competitors relate to the prices of the bids that they will submit to the financier in response to the BLAM. Things are clear. There is no basis or hint in the emails that it is possible that this was an intention to sell the equipment from Harel to any of the other suppliers, and there is no basis for the claim that the emails could have been understood differently or that Zeiger understood them differently (in an interrogation that took place only two months after the events, when he was presented with the email correspondence P/116, to begin with, over time, and in response to repeated questions, Zeiger did not claim that he believed that these were sales prices from Harel to competitors, and adhered to the explanation that this was an estimate of prices that the competitors would submit to the competition." A, P/220, S. 204-200, 216-220, 228-235, 275-277, 316-320). This is sufficient to bring about the rejection of the claim.