Roy confirmed in his testimony that the plaintiff was offered partial payment of the debt "between 60,000 and 80,000", but he refused the offer because the offer "embarrassed" him, when the said amount was not enough to cover even the cost of the workers paid by the plaintiff, and he feared that if he agreed to the offer, Prestige would claim that the debt had been paid in full, and would not agree to pay the balance of the debt (p. 38, lines 6-20 of the transcript).
When Roy was asked whether, in light of the above, he confirms that Uri made an effort to bring about that at least part of the amount of the debt be paid to the plaintiff and did not try to "escape from any debt", he could not negate the aforesaid and focused his answer on the considerations for which he rejected the offer (p. 39, lines 31-35 of the transcript).
I am of the opinion that Roy's testimony in this matter constitutes support for Uri's claims, according to which he continued to make an effort to pay luxury debts to suppliers (by prestige), and on the other hand, weakens the plaintiff's claims that Uri acted in order to evade the payment of the debts by prestige.
In her summaries, the plaintiff complains about Uri's claim, according to which Prestige reached arrangements with certain creditors, and claims that it is not clear how this conduct is consistent with Uri's claim that he thought that the debts to the suppliers would be paid after the Ministry of Health received funds, but that Uri clarified that there were suppliers who were "stressed for money" and asked that they be paid a partial payment, and that would end the matter, and on the other hand, there were suppliers, that they were willing to wait until "order is made" and the receipts are received from the Ministry of Health, while clarifying that he knew that "these things would take time," but he did not think that they would take "that long" (p. 64, lines 25-28 of the transcript).
- It seems that the plaintiff interpreted those efforts as Uri's undertaking to pay the debt of luxury out of his own pocket, when she claimed that Uri had deceived her that he would "pay the money for the service provided." First of all, it should be noted that in his testimony, Roy confirmed that the plaintiff's day-to-day conduct vis-à-vis Prestige was through the administrative manager of Prestige (p. 27, lines 24-25 of the transcript), but in his affidavit he stated that he was in constant contact "with Uri and with the defendant's representatives regarding the supply of the work", and was also in contact with Uri "afterwards..... in connection with the payment of the service" (paragraph 3 of Roy's affidavit).
Beyond the aforesaid, the plaintiff did not present before the court evidence from which it can be learned that Uri undertook to pay the amount of the debt out of his own pocket, and it seems that, once again, the plaintiff does not pay attention to the separate legal personality of Uri, of Weisbord Holdings and of Prestige.