A dispute arose between the parties regarding the date of drafting. Mr. Zaruk put it on 1 December 2012. In other words, according to his own approach, he should have dealt with the company by December 1, 2015, so that the draft would not be canceled. And here, there is no dispute that he retired from the bonus company in November 2012. This is sufficient to lead to the rejection of the claim, from the plaintiff's own point of view.
- However, even on the merits, correspondence between the parties dated September 15, 2014 (Appendix 1 to the Bonus Company's statement of defense( expressly emerges that the draft 2012 agreement is not binding as long as it has not been signed, and even Mr. Goldian's willingness to give increased advances of ILS 30, 000 as stated in the draft is specific and not lateral. Indeed, Mr. Zaruk's affidavit (in the main prosecution at paragraphs 47-48( indicates that Mr. Goldian did not actually pay according to the increased profit percentages specified in the draft.
The plaintiff also tried to rely on the accounting document that CPA Schlefer sent to Mr. Zaruk on March 3, 2016 (Appendix 7 to Mr. Zaruk's affidavit in the main claim, at the end of page 50 of the appendices to his affidavit). According to him, this document prima facie indicates that the calculation was in accordance with the current percentage rate specified in the draft 2012 agreement. However, even this argument will not be saved. These are not sums that were actually paid to Mr. Zaruk. As stated, Mr. Zarrouk explicitly admitted, both in his statement of claim (at paragraph 57( and in his main affidavit (at paragraph 48), that the bonus company refused to pay him according to the increased percentages.
- Against this background, the calculation must be carried out in accordance with the second agreement entered into between the parties.
Reduction of expenses for the salaries of the employees who replaced Mr. Zaruk - Adv. Golan, Adv. Chen, Adv. Shaked and Mr. Goldian
- In accordance with the calculation, there is room to deduct expenses from the payment due to Mr. Zaruk for the salaries of the employees who replaced him in the company Bonus, and dealt with the cases he handled.
139. Before I go into the details of the dispute in this matter, it is necessary to examine the dispute between the parties regarding the manner in which this element should be taken into account.
According to Mr. Zaruk, the salaries of his replacements should be deducted from the income of a bonus company from the authorities, and not from his share of the profits. Among other things, Mr. Zaruk relied on the language of the contract. Indeed, in the agreement from 2009 there is a provision (clause 2(k(( that determines which expenses will be deducted from Mr. Zaruk's share of the profit (as detailed there, these are expenses for the marketer, clause 2(b(; monthly rental expenses, clause 2(c(; part of the secretary's expenses (clause 2(e((; expenses according to suppliers' accounts (clause 2(f((; part of the expenses for fixed property (clause 2(g((; andpart of the expenses of the marketer (section 2(j(). Hence, other expenses, such as the wages of the employees who worked under Mr. Zaruk's management, and the reduction of the wages of his replacements, are not to be taken into account in this way. They should be taken into account on the basis of a deduction from a bonus company's revenue from the authorities.