First, the letter does not bear a date; Second, all that emerges from it is that the corporation decided to work in an orderly and matter-of-fact manner, and therefore decided to freeze all activity on the list of potential assets that a bonus company had transferred to it, as well as to freeze all the activity of Meiad Engineering with establishment fees, until the selection of an entity to be approved by the corporation's management to handle the assets (paragraphs 3-4 of the letter). It is also stated in this letter (in paragraphs 2 and 6( that the Bonus Company will handle the property of the A.D.H.P. plant and the property of Levin Iron, and that Mead Engineering will handle Argaman's property, since Mead's offer was different from the offer of Bonus. This wording reflects, with a high level of probability, that Mr. Zaruk's proposal was, apparently, more worthwhile for the corporation.
Hence, it emerges from the letter that the corporation's conduct was conducted in accordance with the laws of tenders or competitive proceedings, and that this is an orderly conduct that maintains healthy competition.
The Bonus Company did not meet the burden of proof imposed on it to prove that the engagement between Mr. Zarrouk and Mei-Yavne was created as a result of the alleged "solicitation". Bonus also did not prove that the said property was handled by it during the period when Mr. Zaruk worked for the company.
While the letter attached by a bonus company cannot bear the burden it wishes to assign to it, Mr. Goldian's affidavit will not be able to save. This is a single testimony of an interested party, which requires a reasoning justifying reliance on it (in accordance with section 54(2( of the Evidence Ordinance [New Version], 5731-1971 (hereinafter: the Evidence Ordinance), and there is no such one.
- the Mei Ziona Water Corporation; Mr. Goldian admitted in his interrogation that this corporation had asked both the Bonus Company and the Weinberger Law Firm for a price quote for the services of billing the establishment fees, and that his grievance against Mr. Zaruk and the firm was that they had competed with it and stole its employees (p. 495, S. 26 - 496, S. 5). However, this conduct is not improper in view of the fact that the non-competition clause is not valid; and the claims regarding the theft of the workers were rejected, as stated above.
In addition, the Weinberger firm's claim that this engagement was not carried out was not contradicted. The fee agreement that Bonus Company attached to its counterclaim to prove this was not signed at all. Similarly, Mr. Zaruk's claim that he never worked for a bonus company on "Mei Ziona" files (p. 101, S. 28 - 102, S. 2).
- The T.M.R. Water Corporation (Ramla Water Corporation Ltd., hereinafter: the Tamar Corporation(; Bonus has proven that an engagement has been established between Mr. Zaruk and the Weinberger firm and the Tamar Corporation, but this is only in respect of collection from the company "Nesher - Israeli Cement Factories Ltd" (hereinafter: the Nesher Factory( in Ramla.
This is not enough.