According to the plaintiff, the text messages exchanged between Roy and Uri support her claims regarding Uri's undertaking to pay the debt out of his own pocket, and/or the claims of fraud and bad faith conduct by Uri. The plaintiff attached to the statement of claim a copy of text messages, only a few in number, that were exchanged between Uri and Roi (Appendix C to the statement of claim). These text messages were not attached to Roy's affidavit at all, without giving any reason for the statement. I will add that in any case I did not find that their content is sufficient to prove the plaintiff's claims, since the main content of them is Uri's response to Roy's inquiries, where Uri replies that efforts are being made to "close the matter". Needless to say, a statement that an effort was made to arrange the payment of the debt does not in itself constitute a personal obligation by Uri to pay the amount of the debt out of his own pocket.
I will also add that Roy testified that there were other correspondence between him and Uri, but apparently Uri "made temporary messages, as everyone does today, that they don't want such and such things," and that he was in good faith, not paying attention. This testimony of Ro'i, regarding additional correspondence, was not mentioned in his affidavit, without me finding a substantive reason for it (p. 32, lines 29-31 of the transcript).
Moreover, Roy testified that when he called Uri to check when the debt would be paid, Uri told him that he had sold Prestige to David and gave him David's details, but when he turned to David, he replied that "there is no time, not now, I will talk to you" (p. 40, lines 15-16 and 23-28 of the transcript).
When Roi was asked whether David had told him in those conversations that this was a debt that Uri had taken upon himself, he replied that "David did not mention Uri" (p. 40, lines 29-31 of the transcript).
This testimony of Roy, according to which Uri referred him to David, is inconsistent with the claim that Uri undertook to pay the debt out of his own pocket, and in view of the above, I determine that this claim of the plaintiff has not been proven.
- Regarding the circumstances of the signing of the agreement for the sale of shares to David, Uri stated that even before the termination of the lease agreement, he "sought a partner for the company" and from time to time he was approached by "various parties", including those referred by the landlord and by brokers, as well as parties related to the field of nursing homes, with offers for the purchase of luxury, but these did not mature into an agreement (paragraph 35 of Uri's affidavit).
He also stated that in November 2021 he was offered a job as an analyst (employee) at the Menorah insurance company, and around the same time, David approached him and expressed interest in purchasing luxury shares, while David noted that "he is engaged in the field of manpower services and intends to introduce activity into the company and use it for his needs." As a result of the aforesaid, and in view of his decision to work as an analyst at the Menorah Insurance Company, the agreement for the sale of the shares to David was signed, in the ordinary course of business and lawful (paragraphs 37-39 of Uri's affidavit).