A: I'll answer you. A lot of things were answered by me from HostApp. Apparently he made temporary messages, like everyone does today, that they don't want this or that kind of thing, and I'm in good faith, I probably didn't notice. I had correspondence with him, I had voice conversations with him.
Q: Her name?
A: That I probably didn't keep. And the man deceived me, in July, 'What's going on? What about the money?' There were situations like this, sometimes even afterwards, but it didn't matter. The month of July is over, 'What's going on with the money?' says to me, 'Wait a minute, wait' (unclear)" (p. 32, lines 26-27 of the transcript).
Roy testified that his correspondence and "voice conversations" with Uri were not preserved, but that there was no mention of this claim in his affidavit, and the aforesaid is puzzling - to say the least. When Roi was asked about the aforesaid, he did not have a substantive answer (p. 34, lines 9-13 of the transcript).
I will add that no appendices were attached to Roy's affidavit at all, although various appendices were attached to the statement of claim, including text messages that were exchanged between Roy and Uri. Again, no substantive reason was given.
I thought that I should bring these things before I would go into the body of the claims of fraud and lack of good faith, because they are sufficient to teach about the plaintiff's evidentiary difficulty, as will be detailed below. Seventhly, when the burden of proving the elements of the tort of fraud is heavier than the burden required in a "regular" civil action, and in this context I will turn to Civil Appeal 1137/23 Eliyahu Deri v. the Jewish National Fund (given on May 5, 2025): "Alongside all this, it should be emphasized that in light of the fact that the tort of fraud entails a particularly severe shade of guilt, this court has ruled more than once that the burden of proving its foundations will be heavier than the burden required in a "regular" civil action (see, for example: In Tax Appeal 4181/22, at paragraph 13 of the opinion of Justice Grosskopf; Yaakov Kedmi on the Evidence - Part Four - The Law in the Light of Case Law 1778 (Combined and Updated Edition 2009)."
- The plaintiff claims that Uri anticipated the cessation of renting the property to luxury, hid the aforesaid from her, did not act to minimize the damage, and suddenly "got up and left", but I did not find that this claim was proven.
In his affidavit, Uri detailed the sequence of events that led to the cessation of Dignity's activity, and these claims were not hidden.