Against this background, it was argued that the partial picture that was exposed was sufficient to justify the payment of ILS 2, 834, 708 plus VAT, along with the appointment of an investigative accountant in accordance with the authority granted in these matters by law and case law.
- Zaruk also petitioned for Mr. Goldian's personal obligation, as he is the owner, director and CEO of a bonus company. In fact, according to him, something will kiss her. Therefore, he may be held personally liable by virtue of lifting the corporate veil of the company, or due to direct liability in view of the breach of his duty of good faith as a manager in the corporation, and for the commission of torts and other torts.
- From an evidentiary point of view, a bonus company refrained from attaching to its affidavits the agreements that were entered into with the municipal authorities and corporations in order toavoid presenting the full picture of the nature and scope of its work, and in order to obscure its lack of exclusivity in the said engagements. In any event, Mr. Zaruk handled thousands of properties belonging to 27 local authorities and municipal corporations, and must be paid for the fruits of his labor.
- Against the background of all this, the plaintiff petitioned for payment of the sums and for the granting of the remedies detailed in the claim and in chapter 13 of its summaries, plus linkage and interest differences. He also petitioned for payment of expenses that would reflect the duration and scope of the proceeding, which was unnecessarily cumbersome by the defendants, inter alia, in summoning many witnesses whose testimony was not necessary for the purpose of clarifying the dispute.
The main arguments of Bonus and Mr. Goldian in the main lawsuit
- According to the defendants, the claim should be dismissed in its entirety, due to Mr. Zaruk's hurtful lie on the core issue in dispute in this case. He claimed that he had not contracted with any party for the purpose of establishing a venture in the field of proactive collection for the authorities, and this claim is not true. In addition, the lawsuit against Mr. Goldian should be dismissed for lack of ground. He was added as a defendant in bad faith, and this requires a charge of real expenses as a result.
- On the merits, the non-compete clause is valid and binding on Mr. Zaruk, and the sanctions for its breach must be taken into account in the framework of the present litigation. This stipulation is reasonable and should be enforced in light of the special and comprehensive training that the plaintiff received, in light of the great reputation he acquired in connection with his work at a bonus company, and in light of the considerable consideration given to him. The plaintiff came to the bonus company with no knowledge in the relevant field, and thanks to it he gained the professional base that served him later on. The first agreement did not include a non-compete clause, but the second included such a clause, and indeed, Mr. Zaruk was given excess consideration for this. This is not an ordinary agreement, but rather a partnership agreement, which gives the plaintiff a significant share of the profit.
On the other hand, the draft from 2012 should not be taken into account as a basis for calculation, since it was not signed. So the only relevant agreement between the parties is the other.
- The plaintiff was well aware of the limitation of non-competition. He took it upon himself in light of the considerable profit he derived from the engagement with a bonus company. She would not have communicated with him if he had not committed to what he had promised. And now he breached the same undertaking after the engagement with the company ended. He did so deliberately and with full awareness.
Thus, it was proven that even before the engagement between the parties was terminated, Mr. Zaruk collected data related to the charges of local authorities and water corporations with which the Bonus Company requested to contract. He caused the company to not engage with them regarding the aforementioned charges, and after the termination of the employment, Mr. Zaruk took advantage of the matter to engage with the company's existing and potential customers.