Example of a defense letter – commercial – contractual claim with financial damages

An example of a defense letter can greatly help you understand how to draft one. Defense letter before new regulationsHowever, it is very important to consult with Claims lawyer Experienced before drafting and filing a defense, especially when it comes to disputes involving significant sums of money.

There is a difference between drafting a defense in a lawsuit in a speedy trial (there are additional documents that need to be attached to the lawsuit, such as an affidavit, a list of documents, etc.)List of witnesses) To initiate a lawsuit in ordinary court.

In addition, there are differences in submission dates. Filing a defense within 60 days From the date of receipt of the statement of claim is only relevant to claims in an amount exceeding 75 thousand shekels. In contrast, filing a statement of defense in a claim under the expedited procedure will be done within 45 days from the date of receipt of the statement of claim. An example of a statement of defense that will be presented below is relevant to a claim under the regular procedure.

Another difference is that a defense in a regular court proceeding does not require you to attach all the documents and evidence you have in advance. All evidence must be submitted with Affidavit of first witness (After the documents are disclosed to the opposing party within the framework of General Document Disclosure Affidavit).

In contrast, a defense in a speedy trial must include all documents relevant to the claim. Documents that were not included in the defense cannot be attached later unless you receive permission from the court.

This example of a defense letter is written in accordance with the instructions Civil Procedure RegulationsIt is very important to familiarize yourself with the regulations, otherwise you will not be able to win. Civil lawsuit By yourselves.

Example of a defense letter

Regarding:

The plaintiff: שם ושם משפחה, ת"ז: _______________
__________ Street, City
Tel: ___________ 
ע"י ב"כ עו"ד ____________ N G D

Defendants: 1. שם ושם משפחה, ת"ז: _____________
_________ St., City
Tel: ____________________
ע"י עוה"ד אדי בליטשטיין (מ.ר. 60023) – Through a power of attorney limited to the defense
13 HaHagana St., Rishon LeZion (Yaron Miller Tower, Office 501) 
Tel: 03-6427876; Fax: 077-4704697

Date of filing of the lawsuit: Not legally invented 
Deadline for submitting the defense: 18.12.2022

Defense

In accordance with the decision of the Honorable Court dated November 16, 2022, the Defendant hereby submits a defense on his behalf.

Furthermore, in accordance with that decision, the defendant resubmits, together with this defense, his request to determine that The service of the writ of summons was not lawfully carried out and this Honorable Court has no jurisdiction to hear this suit.

The Honorable Court is hereby requested to first consider the request, decide on it, and accept it, before continuing this proceeding, and also to impose special legal costs on the plaintiff for the unnecessary hassle involved in filing a defense (see the end of the Honorable Court's decision dated November 16, 2022).

Emphasis not in the original unless otherwise noted.

Preliminary claims – outright dismissal

A. Dismissal due to failure to perform a lawful invention and the lack of jurisdiction of the Honorable Court to hear this claim

1. For reasons of caution only, in addition to the separate motion filed together with the defense in this matter, it is clarified in the abstract that the statement of claim was not duly served on the defendants, but was served on the relatives of defendant 1, At two different addresses Which are not the address that the plaintiff specified in the title of the statement of claim as the relevant address for the defendantsDefendant 1 does not reside with those relatives and was not with them at the time the statement of claim was filed. Defendant 1 is an American citizen who was in Israel for a short period of time on vacation at the time the statement of defense was served on his relatives, and neither he nor Defendant 2 have representatives authorized to receive legal documents on their behalf.
2. יתרה מזאת, לבית משפט נכבד זה אין כלל סמכות לדון בתביעה זו, ובעניין זה ראו פסיקת בית המשפט העליון מהעת האחרונה ברע"א 3774/22 Taro Pharmaceutical Industry v. Moshe Hait (Published in Nevo, 25.10.2022).

B. The lawsuit is vexatious and vexatious and constitutes an abuse of legal proceedings.

• We are dealing with a lawsuit that began in a partnership in 2016, which the plaintiff violated, according to his admission. The plaintiff delayed, and filed his lawsuit close to the statute of limitations. It is presumed that a litigant does not sleep on his rights, and if the plaintiff truly believed that the defendants owed him some amount, he would have filed his lawsuit many years ago. This lawsuit is an extreme example of abuse of legal process. Under these circumstances, the court is requested to order the dismissal of the lawsuit pursuant to Regulations 41(a)(1), 41(a)(2), 41(a)(4), 42, 43.
• In any case, the plaintiff has no claims whatsoever regarding defendant 2, and this is enough to dismiss the claim against her.

C. The statement of claim is not legally drafted – at the very least, it should be ordered to be corrected.

• A review of the statement of claim reveals that it does not comply with the provisions of Regulations 9(d) and 11 of the Regulations, as the second part of the statement of claim is 3 pages long (instead of only 2 pages), and it includes details that are not permitted under Regulation 11.
• In this regard, the relevant part of Regulation 9(d) of the Regulations states as follows:

The second part of the statement of claims shall not exceed two pages. And the third part will not exceed nine pages. If filed with a magistrate's court, and respectively three and twelve pages if filed in a district court; "

• It should be emphasized that the Supreme Court, and other courts, have also ruled that Regulation 9(d) must be interpreted strictly.
• כך לדוגמה נקבע על ידי בית המשפט העליון בבש"א 433/21 Micah Levy v. Yitzhak Levy et al. (Published in Nevo, January 26, 2021):

"תקנות סדר הדין החדשות מבקשות אפוא בין היתר "למגר את התופעה של שימוש מרובה בניירת מעל ומעבר לנדרש, באופן המקשה לאתר את השאלות השנויות במחלוקת ומביא לבזבוז זמן שיפוטי יקר ולהתשת הצד שכנגד שלא לצורך" (See, Explanatory Notes to the Regulations, on page 12Considering this, it was limited within their framework, by way of budgeting Maximum number of pagesScope of a defense, a statement of claim, and a response (Regulations 9(d)) ו-18(ב) לתקנות)."

• כך לדוגמה נקבע על ידי בית המשפט העליון בער"א 5257/21 SKS Holdings LLC נ' עמיטק ניהול ופיתוח נכסי נדל"ן (Published in Nevo, 19.8.21):

"תחימת היקף כתבי הטענות בפרט נועדה "למגר את התופעה של שימוש מרובה בניירת מעל ומעבר לנדרש, באופן המקשה לאתר את השאלות השנויות במחלוקת ומביא לבזבוז זמן שיפוטי יקר ולהתשת הצד שכנגד שלא לצורך" (הדברים נאמרו אמנם ביחס לתקנה 9(ד) לתקנות שעניינה בהיקף כתבי הטענות המוגשים לערכאה הדיונית, אולם הם יפים גם לענייננו(."

1. כך לדוגמה נקבע על ידי בית המשפט השלום בבת ים בת"א 1834-03-21 מרכז שיבננדה ליוגה וודנטה (ע"ר) נ' תמר בנטל ואח' (Published in Nevo, 10/17/2021): "כמו כן, ובלא קשר לבקשה, The length and structure of the statement of claim do not comply with the provisions of סעיף 9(ד) לתקנות סדר הדין האזרחי, תשע"ט–2018. The plaintiffs will submit a statement of claims that complies with the provisions of the regulations in terms of length and structure by the date set for payment of the bond. If they don't do so, the lawsuit will be dismissed.."

Summary of the defense arguments

1. The plaintiff signed a partnership agreement with the defendants, and not just an agreement to provide a loan. This is also explicitly stated in Appendix 4 to the statement of claim. בו מציין ב"כ התובע Again and again This is about In a partnership agreement And that the plaintiff was Partner of Defendant 1This is also clear from the clauses of the agreement on which the plaintiff relies in the statement of claim.
2. The plaintiff is the one who breached the agreement between the parties., והדבר עולה באופן מפורש מהתכתבויות הוואטסאפ שצירף התובע לכתב התביעה (נספח 3), בהן הודה התובע, עוד בשנת 2018, שהוא "לא תורם שום דבר _____" (הנתבעת 2), ושלדעתו של התובע "אני חושב שיהיה יותר נכון למצוא שותף שגם יכנס במקומי". עוד הוסיף התובע כי ידוע לו שהוא הפך "כנטל על ______" (כל הציטוטים מעמוד 46 לכרך הנספחים לכתב התביעה).
3. It is already clear at this stage that we have before us an admission by a litigant that the plaintiff is the one who violated the agreement with the defendants.
4. יתרה מזאת, התובע לא יכול לתבוע "השבת הכספים" אשר not הועברו לרשות הנתבע 1, בסך כולל של 62,399$" (סעיף 13 לכתב התביעה) שכן הוא מעולם לא העביר For defendant 1 Such an amount. A review of Appendix 2 to the statement of claim will reveal various invoices that were paid. To various parties Even before the agreement was signed between the parties. To the extent that the plaintiff believes that he is entitled to the reimbursement of the amounts, he must contact the authorities he Paid. In any case, the plaintiff is not entitled to any payment from the defendants due to the damages he caused them.
5. No transfer of shares was ever made as the plaintiff does not comply with the terms of the agreement (see sections 8.1, 8.2.8). Under these circumstances, it cannot be claimed that the defendants breached the agreement in any way.

Arguments regarding the requested relief

1. תביעת התובע מבוססת על "השבה". לשיטת התובע על הנתבעים להשיב לו 62,399$, אותם העביר לנתבע 1 (סעיף 13 לכתב התביעה). כאמור לעיל, התובע מעולם לא העביר לנתבע 1 סכום זה, ומשכך הנתבע 1 כלל אינו חייב "להשיב" לתובע סכום זה. התובע מודה בכך בסעיף 40 לכתב התביעה.
2. מכיוון שהתובע ביסס את תביעתו רק על "הפרות חוזה מצד הנתבע" (פרק ח' לכתב התביעה), We only have possible grounds for cancellation and remedies under contract law..
3. Here, not only did the defendants not breach the agreement with the plaintiff, but the plaintiff breached the agreement with the defendants, causing the defendants enormous damages that led to a situation in which Defendant 2 was on the verge of closure.
4. Under these circumstances, not only is the plaintiff not entitled to the principal of the debt, but he is also not entitled to interest.

Details of the facts that serve as the basis for the defense

• הנתבע 1 הוא יזם אשר עזב בשנת 2014 את ישראל ומתגורר מאז בארה"ב, ונכון להיום הוא אזרח ארה"ב. בין הנתבע 1 לתובע הייתה הכרות וחברות רבת שנים. משכך, עוד בתחילת שנת 2016 הנתבע 1 יצר קשר עם התובע ועניין אותו בהקמת מיזם משותף (אשר זכה בסופו של דבר לשם _______– הנתבעת 2) אשר מהותו יצירת קשר בין לקוחות לבין ___________.
• The project took shape And the plaintiff agreed to be in it. partner, ואף להשקיע 60 אלף דולר תמורת 49% ממניות הנתבעת 2. התובע בחר את עורך הדין אשר ניסח את ההסכם בין הצדדים. ניתן להיווכח בכך בקלות שכן, נספח 2 לכתב התביעה כולל חשבון עסקה (ולא חשבונית מס/קבלה המעידים על תשלום בפועל על ידי התובע בגין שירותים אלה) מטעם אותו עורך דין שניסח את ההסכם (ראו את שם משרדו של עוה"ד שבחר התובע בכל עמוד להסכם – מעל חתימת הנתבע 1).
• התובע מעולם לא קיים את הפרוצדורה הקבועה בהסכם לצורך העברת המניות. יתרה מזאת, במשך שנים הוא כלל לא דרש לקבל את המניות בפועל (ראו נספח 3 לכתב התביעה), שכן הוא ידע שהוא יצר נזקים אדירים העולים בהרבה על סכום השקעתו הראשונית. רק לאחר שהתובע הודה בפני הנתבע 1 שהוא הפך "כנטל" הוא החל להעלות טענות סרק בדבר הפרת חוזה (מוכחשת) על ידי הנתבע 1.
• The plaintiff also allegedly transferred large amounts of money to third parties. Even before signing the agreement (השוו עם שמות ומועדי ביצוע התשלום המפורטים בנספח 2 לכתב התביעה). בשלב זה התובע דורש מהנתבעים "השבה" של סכומים אלה, But it is clear that the defendants are not obliged to answer What they didn't get at allAnd in any case, the plaintiff is the one who violated the agreement between the parties and is therefore not entitled to any restitution. (More on this below).
• יתרה מזאת, עיון בנספח 2 יגלה כי התובע צירף מסמכים שאינם מעידים על תשלומים שהוא ביצע בפועל. כך לדוגמה ניתן למצוא במסגרת נספח 2 "חשבון עסקה", "דוח פירוט חיובים לחשבונות עסקה", מסמכים שונים מבנק לאומי (לא בכדי מסמכי בנק לאומי הוגשו באיכות ירודה וקשה מאוד להבין מה כתוב בהם). אלה אינם מעידים כלל על ביצוע העברת כספים בפועל על ידי התובע (השוו מסמכי בנק לאומי עם כותרת "הנדון: הודעה על בצוע פעולה כספים בק"ע יבוא שירותים", לבין מסמכים שכלל לא כוללים כותרת זו ואינם מעידים כלל על ביצוע העברת הכספים).
• יתרה מזו, התשלומים בוצעו זמן רב טרם חתימת ההסכם והתובע ציין כי התשלומים הם "בגין יבוא שרותים". Either way, even according to these documents, the plaintiff does not reach $62,399.
• בשלב הקמת המיזם הנתבע 1 התגורר בארה"ב והתובע בישראל. הנתבע 1 הציע לתובע לעבור להתגורר בארה"ב, ואף הציע לו להתגורר עמו בשלב הקמת המיזם על מנת להקל עליהם לפעול ביחד לצורך הקמת המיזם.
• התובע דחה את הצעת הנתבע 1 ובחר להתמקד בעסקי הנדל"ן שיש לו בישראל.
• Even before the signing of the agreement between the parties, Defendant 1 took the trouble to open a bank account in the name of Defendant 2, and transferred the username and password for logging into the account to the plaintiff, More on 14.9.2016The username and password were not changed by Defendant 1.

Appendix 1: A screenshot of the WhatsApp correspondence between the plaintiff and defendant 1, showing that defendant 1 transferred the username and password to defendant 2's bank account.

• This is enough to raise doubts about the plaintiff's demand to receive data regarding the company's condition (see, for example, Section 43 of the statement of claim), and this is sufficient to reject the demand.
• This WhatsApp correspondence also highlights why the plaintiff chose to attach to his statement of claim WhatsApp correspondences that begin End of November 2018 (Appendix 3), since, The plaintiff is trying to hide his shortcomings throughout the years 2016-2018, and that it was actually the 1st defendant who did the work involved in the project.This is not how a litigant interested in investigating the truth acts, and this is enough to indicate the plaintiff's lack of good faith.
• ההסכם בין הצדדים נחתם ביום 21.12.2016, ועל אף שהוא נערך על ידי עו"ד (אותו בחר התובע), ניכר גם לעין חסרת השכלה משפטית שהמסמך הוא לכל היותר טיוטה לא סופית. ניתן לראות זאת עקב סימני מהדורה המופיעים בצידו הימני של ההסכם ומחיקות של חלק מהסעיפים (ראו לדוגמה עמוד 2 להסכם ו/או סעיפים 12.11.8, 13.7.3).
• As far as Defendant 1 knows, the appendices mentioned in the agreement between the parties (see, for example, Section 3 of the agreement) were never attached (and the plaintiff did not bother to attach them to the statement of claim).
• זמן לא רב לאחר חתימת ההסכם התברר כי התובע לא עושה דבר לצורך קידום המיזם. "תרומתו" הסתכמה בכתיבת "תוכנית עסקית" חובבנית וחסרה, אותה הנתבע 1 נאלץ לתקן ולשכתב.
• If that were not enough, apart from $60,000 which the plaintiff transferred mainly to third parties (even before the agreement was signed), he did not pay any additional funds to promote the project. In light of the plaintiff's conduct, and since the 1st defendant tried with all his might to keep the project alive, Defendant 1 was forced to pay out of pocket. About 135 thousand dollarsIn 2017: $4,560In 2018: $26,035In 2019: $57,627In 2020: $20,811In 2021: $16,371In 2022: So far about$8000.
• Furthermore, Defendant 1 invested thousands of hours of work For the purpose of characterizing the project and working with a company to develop an application for cell phones, adding content to the application, QA Assurance for the application, creating a business plan, creating a marketing plan, preparing a financial model, preparing a pitch deck, preparing a speech and presentations for investors, sharing an offer in investor databases, writing terms of use and privacy terms, creating promotional videos, graphic work, and more. This work, in itself, is valued at hundreds of thousands of dollars. For some of the tasks, companies were hired, and in addition to the ongoing work for them (which took a lot of time), Defendant 1 paid a lot of money out of his own pocket.
• On the other hand, a review of the WhatsApp correspondence that the plaintiff attached to the lawsuit will reveal that he admitted that he did not contribute to the project, But he insisted on remaining part of the project, Despite his violations of the agreement, with the aim of receiving the company's profits in the future. The plaintiff is a free rider and nothing more.
• A review of Appendix 3 to the statement of claim will reveal numerous admissions by the plaintiff, stating that it is absolutely clear that the project was not his primary concern, And that he was the one who violated the agreement with the defendantsFor example:

22:43, 4.12.2018: " I haven't written about ____ in a long time. I really missed it.
…

In life, as in life, things don't always go according to plan...
…

In my approach, I understood that even if we go down this path and ultimately fail to lift this thing, I am still satisfied and happy with the move. Even if after 5 years we leave without an exit, because the very learning and experience of something like this will accompany you for life and will push you a step forward. I saw you in line. partner appropriateI am also an entrepreneur by nature, so the field interested me.

I entered the field completely blind and my attitude was – no matter what happens along the way, the main thing is to move forward. eventually Even if I end up with 3% of the shares at the end of this process and not 15%, that's okay. As long as I moved forward and didn't stop along the way….then I couldn’t come near him at all And I became As a burden About _____DBut from the beginning I said if it happens I'll take a step back..

Sooner or later it happened. I couldn't give ______ what she needed.The schedule was also completely different from what I expected and planned.

…
I won't lie, I would like to stay _______ and move it forward – But I can't in any wayI am currently in a situation where I have to move into my own home...I still think That since I don't contribute anything ______ And as time goes by I kind of expect to get some return on my money.…so I think it would be more correct find partner Who will also step in my place, will also help you move _____ forward ______ you will be in a much healthier place.…I know you are working hard. And you work alone., so I don't apply any pressure.

…

In my opinion, it could be that at a very early stage we would have done things completely differently and then I would have continued to be a full part of ______. But I let you run the show. And as part of that, I came home late. And I gave the best I could. Obviously, that wasn't enough by any means..

…

I am not suited to this path. Unfortunately, that's why I took a step back.

…

I know you know what you're doing. And I know you're invested in it. And invest your life in it, You really spent a lot of money. And you see that you're going to push this thing forward.

…

No doubt You are doing everything right. And that's amazing.."

These party's admissions are found on pages 45-46, 48, 50, 51 of the volume of appendices attached to the statement of claim.

• The above is enough to understand that there is nothing in common between what is written in the lawsuit and reality. This only emphasizes how vexatious and annoying this lawsuit is, and how much the plaintiff is abusing legal proceedings.
• If we analyze the plaintiff's statements, we discover the following: A. התובע מודה שהוא הצטרף כשותף (הדבר גם עולה בצורה מפורשת מנספח 4 לכתב התביעה בו ב"כ התובע מכנה את התובע "שותף" ומתייחס ל"הסכם שותפות" (הכל באנגלית)); on. The plaintiff admits that he would disappear for long periods of time and was not at all engaged in the project; third. התובע מודה כי הפך להיות "כנטל"; D. The plaintiff admitted that he would not be able to contribute anything even in relation to the future; the. The plaintiff admitted that the 1st defendant was working on the project alone; and. The plaintiff admitted that defendant 1 was doing everything right. And that the plaintiff knows that the 1st defendant paid a lot of money out of his own pocket.
• Despite these admissions by the plaintiff, according to which it can be learned that the venture failed due to a lack of investment on the part of the plaintiff, Now the plaintiff has the courage to demand from the defendants Amounts he never paid for them, and that in any case the plaintiff is not entitled to a refund at all.

The person who violated the contract is the plaintiff, not the defendants.

• סעיף 5 להסכם ההתקשרות עוסק ב"התחייבויות הצדדים". סעיף 5.1 קובע כך:

"The parties Committed Invest their time and skills in the continuous and ongoing operation of the business and in promoting the business's affairs, as required by this agreement, and refrain from any act or omission that could harm the business, the company and/or its businesses, and from any business activity and/or other work that is contrary to the interests of the business.; "

• This section is the exact same section on which the plaintiff bases his claim (section 34 of the statement of claim). It is sufficient to review this section to discover that, contrary to the plaintiff's claims, he did not sign an agreement to provide a loan only (section 2 of the statement of claim) because, according to the wording of the section, the obligation also applies to the plaintiff.
• Also, the WhatsApp correspondences that the plaintiff attached to his statement of claim They discover that he is the one who violatedAmong other things, this section By abandoning the venture and/or not investing the necessary time in it, which led to Defendant 1 being forced to pay large sums of money out of his own pocket.
• Now the plaintiff claims that the 1st defendant violated the agreement because the 1st defendant allegedly did not bother to transfer and/or register 49% of the company's shares in the plaintiff's name (sections 10-11 of the statement of claim).
• This is an argument no less astonishing because it is incorrect and because it once again demonstrates the plaintiff's lack of good faith.
• First, the plaintiff began to complain that he allegedly did not receive 49% of the company's shares only after he sent the first WhatsApp message to the first defendant, which constitutes a party's admission that he had abandoned the project, and did not contribute to it at all (a party's admission of the plaintiff's breach of the agreement). In fact, a review of the WhatsApp correspondence between the parties reveals that the first time the plaintiff indicates to the first defendant that the first defendant allegedly breached the agreement with him (according to the plaintiff) is on 4.9.2019 (Page 71 of the volume of appendices attached to the statement of claim). That is, for almost 3 years from the date of signing the agreement, the plaintiff had no grievances regarding the defendants. This means that the plaintiff's claim is a valid claim. In this matter, the Supreme Court ruled as follows:

"הכלל החל לעניינה של עדות כבושה הינו כי ערכה ומשקלה הראייתי של זו מועטים בשל החשד המתעורר באופן טבעי באשר לאמיתותה."

ראו: ע"פ 1645/08 So-and-so v. State of Israel (Published in Nevo, 3.9.2009).

• The plaintiff only began to raise his claim about three years after signing the contract, after he sent a notice on December 4, 2018, which constitutes an admission by a litigant that he had abandoned the project and violated the agreement with the defendants, and only out of a strategy according to which the best defense is an attack. This is the story of this frivolous lawsuit.
• Beyond the fact that the plaintiff is the one who violated the agreement with the defendants, the plaintiff did not follow the procedure set out in the agreement for the transfer of the shares, And cannot claim at this stage that the defendants (or any of them) violated the agreement with him..
• סעיף 8 להסכם ההתקשרות מפרט על "עבירות המניות". סעיף 8.1 קובע כך:

"למען הסר ספק, פרק זה תקף לפני הקמת חברה וגם לאחריה. לאחר הקמת החברה, הפרק מדבר על העברת מניות החברה ואילו בהעברה טרם הקמת החברה, הפרק מדבר על העברת חלק בבעלות הכוללת בעסק."

• Section 8.2.8 states as follows (two cumulative conditions for each transfer of shares):

"Any transfer of shares, Will be done subject to two conditions being met as follows:

8.2.8.1. The person who passed awayTermination, prior to the transfer, of an obligation towards the Company and the shareholders, whereby the transferor undertakes to fulfill all obligations of the transferor under this agreement (as amended by the parties from time to time, in accordance with its provisions) and/or under any other agreement between the transferor and the Company, which will be in effect at the time of the transfer.; also

8.2.8.2. The director(s) appointed on behalf of the transferor have signed and delivered to the Company a letter of unconditional resignation from their position as director(s). After receiving their resignations and after the transfer of the offered shares has been completed, the new shareholder will be entitled to appoint director(s) in place of the resigned director(s).; "

• The plaintiff did not at all claim in his statement of claim that his instructions The cumulative of Section 8.2.8 were met in this case, and this is sufficient to reject his claim of breach of contract on his part. To avoid any doubt, The defendants oppose any expansion and/or change of facade on the part of the plaintiff, especially in this matter.
• גם אם נניח שסעיף 8.2.8 להסכם לא קיים ו/או התובע קיים את הוראותיו (ואין כך הדבר), הרי שהתובע הסכים בהתנהגותו לכך שהנתבע 1 לא יעביר אליו 49% מהמניות (ראו סעיף 6 לחוק החוזים (חלק כללי), התשל"ג – 1973). כאמור לעיל, במשך Years The plaintiff had no complaint in this matter (because he knew that he had violated the agreement with the defendants), and this was only raised by him at the end of 2019, after back in 2018 the plaintiff sent the defendant 1 a notice that constitutes an admission by the party of a breach of contract on his part. 
• In these circumstances, the provisions of Section 11 of the Contracts Law also apply, as The plaintiff, by his conduct, which continued for years, agreed to the terms of the new contract., according to which the shares would not be transferred to him, and defendant 1, by his conduct, also agreed to this.
• For reasons of caution only, even if the Honorable Court reaches a decision that Defendant 1 violated the contract with the Plaintiff (a matter that is categorically denied), then the funds that Defendant 1 was forced to pay out of pocket to cover the expenses of the project, as detailed above, must be deducted from the amounts allegedly due to the Plaintiff.

Summary of things so far

• כבר בשלב זה ברור כי תביעתו של התובע היא תביעת סרק, קנטרנית וטורדנית, המתארת "מציאות" שכלל לא התרחשה. למעשה, התובע "שכח" לציין בפני בית המשפט הנכבד שעוד לפני שהוא החל להאשים את הנתבע 1 בדבר "הפרת הסכם" (עניין מוכחש) הוא עצמו הודה שהוא הפר את ההסכם וכלל לא טרם לטובת המיזם.
• לתובע אין טענות כלשהן ביחס לנתבעת 2. לא נטען שהנתבעת 2 הפרה את ההסכם עם התובע, ומשכך לא ברור מה העילה המשפטית כנגדה, ובמיוחד כאשר תובע "השבה" עקב הפרת הסכם על ידי הנתבע 1 (עניין מוכחש).
• The plaintiff admitted that he was well aware that defendant 1 was forced to spend a lot of money out of his own pocket (due to the plaintiff's failures). The admission of a litigant in this matter emphasizes the great audacity of filing this lawsuit and demanding money from the defendants. Money that the defendants did not receive at all, and therefore they are not obligated to return it.
• Furthermore, the defendants are not obligated to return even the small amount of money that the defendants received from the plaintiff, since the plaintiff caused the defendants considerable damage due to his breach of the agreement.
• For reasons of caution only, if the court believes otherwise, the funds due to the plaintiff (a denied matter) must be offset from the funds paid by the 1st defendant.
• The above is sufficient to dismiss the claim on its face and/or on its merits.

Reference to the clauses of the statement of claim

• The provisions of sections 1-4 and the paragraphs preceding these sections are denied. – It is sufficient to review the contract agreement (Appendix 1 to the statement of claim) to see that we are not dealing with an agreement to provide a loan but rather a partnership agreement. This is how the plaintiff himself and his attorney referred to this agreement (see Appendix 4 to the statement of claim). Contradictory claims on behalf of the plaintiff in this matter indicate a blatant attempt to mislead the Honorable Court.
• הנתבע 1 לא "הדיר" את התובע, אלא כמפורט בהרחבה לעיל, התובע בחר לקחת "צעד אחורה", משום שהוא נעדר כישורים, יכולת ורצון.
• Furthermore, Defendant 1 transferred to the plaintiff, even before the signing of the contract between them, the bank account details (see above), so that all the details regarding Defendant 2's situation are currently, and were previously, with the plaintiff.
• The defendants did not even breach the agreement with the plaintiff. According to the admission of a litigant, it was the plaintiff who breached the agreement with the defendants.
• The statements in sections 6-9 of the statement of claim are denied. – The plaintiff's false description of the facts is repeated. The parties did not sign a loan agreement, but a partnership agreement.
• The defendants do not know whether the plaintiff took out any loan, and the loan forms were not attached to the lawsuit at all.
• The statement in Section 10 of the statement of claim is denied – Section 4 of the agreement between the parties details the financial obligation assumed by the plaintiff. This section of the agreement is sufficient to establish that the vast majority of the funds were not paid (and were not intended to be paid) to the defendants.
• מוכחש "סיכום בעל פה" בדבר החזר בגין 2399$ אותם שילם לכאורה התובע. This amount was not even mentioned by the plaintiff in the warning letters sent on his behalf (see, for example, Appendices 4-5 to the statement of claim). This is enough to show that this matter is also a false claim, which is not true.
• Furthermore, this amount emphasizes that the plaintiff was aware that his investment in the company did not amount to only $60,000 (as stipulated in Section 4 of the agreement) but that he would have to bear additional expenses, As actually carried by defendant 1The very fact that the plaintiff chose to stop investing additional funds in the project, and imposed the entire financial burden on the first defendant, is consistent with the admission of the litigant on his behalf as detailed in the correspondence cited above. This conduct of the plaintiff emphasizes the damages caused to the defendants.
• מוכחש האמור בסעיף 11 לכתב התביעה – בסעיף זה התובע מודה בפה מלא כי לא כל הכספים שולמו לנתבעים (אלא רובם המוחלט לגורמים שלישיים), ומשכך לא ברור מכוח מה דורש התובע "השבה" של כל הכספים דווקא מהנתבעים.
• Contrary to what is stated in this section, the plaintiff is the one who violated the agreement with the defendants, and the admission of the litigant on his behalf was clearly stated above.
• The allocation of shares to third parties is categorically denied. This is another false claim made in vain.
• The statement in Section 12 of the statement of claim is denied – דווקא הפרות ההסכם מצידו של התובע הן אלה שהובילו את הנתבע 1 "למעגל קסמים" של הוצאות בלתי נגמרות, בהן הודה התובע.
• The statement in sections 13-14 of the statement of claim is denied. – As detailed above, the plaintiff is not entitled to a single shekel from the defendants. In any case, the plaintiff is not entitled to a refund of $62,399 from the defendants because the plaintiff never transferred this amount to the defendants.
• The plaintiff also received from the defendants the login details for defendant 2's bank account back in 2016 (even before the agreement was signed), so his current demand to receive data regarding the company's financial situation is subject to rejection.
• The statement in sections 15-17 of the statement of claim is denied – There is indeed a lack of good faith both before and after the signing of the agreement. On the part of the plaintiffThe plaintiff even admitted this in his correspondence with the 1st defendant. This admission by a litigant, which speaks for itself, cannot be ignored.
• The plaintiff never followed the procedure set out in the agreement to receive the shares, and while he violated the terms of the agreement, he is not entitled to receive these shares at all, In any case, he gave them up for years after signing the agreement..
• The statement in Section 18 of the statement of claim is denied – The statement of claim was not duly served on the defendants, and in any event this Honorable Court has no jurisdiction to hear the claim. The reasons for this were set forth both at the beginning of this statement of defense and in a separate motion filed with the Honorable Court together with the statement of defense.
• The statement in Section 19 of the statement of claim is denied – Section 4 of the agreement determines what amounts the plaintiff was to transfer and to whom. A review of the agreement will reveal that there is no connection between what the plaintiff alleges in the statement of claim and what was agreed upon.
• The statement in sections 20-21 of the statement of claim is denied –כבר מרשימת ההעברות המוזכרת בסעיף 21 רואים בבירור שהתובע לא העביר את הכספים לנתבעים, ומשכך אינו זכאי "להשבה" מהנתבעים.
• The plaintiff is not entitled to receive the company's shares both because he did not follow the procedure set out in the agreement for receiving the shares, and because he violated the agreement and caused the defendants enormous damages.
• The statement in Section 22 of the statement of claim is categorically denied – לא ברור כיצד הטענה כי "מר ______ היה מעורב באופן אישי בניהול החברה ובפיתוחה העסקי" עולה בקנה אחד עם הודאת בעל דין מצידו של התובע שהוא הפך "כנטל" ולא תרם דבר.
• The statement in Section 23 of the statement of claim is partially denied – אכן שררו יחסי אמון בין הצדדים מתוקף חברות שנמשכה שנים, אך התובע ניצל יחסי אמון אלה על מנת להפוך להיות Free rider. התובע הודה שהפך להיות "כנטל" על הנתבעים, ודי בכך כדי לסתור את כל טענותיו של התובע עתה.
• Nothing was hidden from the plaintiff, as he received the login details for Defendant 2's bank account even before signing the agreement.
• The statement in sections 24-26 of the statement of claim is denied – The plaintiff admits that he began to contact the 1st defendant with various demands. after שהוא הודה שהוא הפך "כנטל" על הנתבעים, ולאחר שהוא הודה שהוא הפר את ההסכם.
• There were indeed attempts between the parties to reach an agreement, but to no avail, given the fact that the plaintiff insisted on being paid large sums of money, even though he was the one who violated the agreement with the defendants.
• The statement in Section 27 of the statement of claim is partially denied – The plaintiff admits that he first contacted defendant 1 with a warning letter on his behalf. only On 8.6.2021As recalled, the plaintiff claims that From 2016 הנתבע 1 "הדיר את רגליו" מהמיזם ולא העביר לידיו את המניות שלכאורה (עניין מוכחש) מגיעות לו. בעל דין אינו ישן על זכויותיו במשך כמעט 5 שנים אם הוא אכן מאמין ששותפו מפר את ההסכם מולו. בעל דין אינו ישן על זכויותיו במשך כמעט 5 שנים אם הוא סבור שהוא צריך לקבל 49% מהמניות.
• A party does not actually file his claim close to the statute of limitations (with the aim of increasing the interest calculations he is claiming).
• This puzzling conduct, plagued by considerable delay, indicates that it is also clear to the plaintiff that justice is not on his side, and the entire purpose of this lawsuit is to exert pressure on the defendants so that they will agree to his unjustified demands, out of a desire to save the costs of legal litigation. In fact, we are dealing with an abuse of legal proceedings, which is contrary to Regulations 3(b), 4 of the Civil Procedure Regulations.
• The statement in Section 28 of the statement of claim is denied – One must wonder how Defendant 1's claims became false on August 18, 2021, when back in December 2018, Plaintiff admitted that he knew that Defendant 1 was working on the project alone (because Plaintiff did not help him speak) and that Defendant 1 was forced to invest a lot of money from his own pocket.
• The blatant contradictions in the prosecutor's version and claims are nothing short of astonishing.
• The statement in sections 29-31 of the statement of claim is denied – The defendants did not violate the agreement with the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not comply with all the conditions set forth in the agreement for the transfer of the shares (the plaintiff did not even bother to claim otherwise).
• According to the admission of a party on behalf of the plaintiff, he violated the agreement with the defendants. It does not matter how many times the plaintiff repeats the (false) claim that the defendants are the ones who violated the agreement with him, this will not change anything in light of the admission of a party on his behalf in this matter.
• The statement in sections 32-33 of the statement of claim is denied – Besides Section 4.1 of the agreement, there are additional sections. It would have been better if the plaintiff had bothered to read Sections 8.1, 8.2.8 of the agreement.
• Even if the plaintiff had complied with the terms of the agreement, he would not have been entitled to receive 49% of the company's shares in light of his ongoing violations of the agreement.
• In any case, the plaintiff is not entitled to receive even a single shekel from the defendants in view of the enormous damages he caused by his numerous and ongoing failures. For reasons of caution only, if it is nevertheless determined that the defendants should pay the plaintiff any amount (a matter denied), then this amount should be offset from the funds that the first defendant invested in the project.
• The statement in sections 34-38 of the statement of claim is denied – These sections emphasize that it is the plaintiff who violated the agreement with the defendants. Furthermore, these sections emphasize that we are not dealing with an agreement to provide a loan, but rather a partnership agreement.
• The repeated claims on behalf of the plaintiff regarding details regarding the situation of defendant 2 are unclear, given the fact that back in 2016 (even before the agreement was signed) the plaintiff received from defendant 1 the login details for defendant 2's bank account.
• The statement in sections 39-44 of the statement of claim is denied – The plaintiff is not entitled to receive even a single shekel from the defendants, because he is the one who violated the agreement with the defendants.
• יתרה מזאת, בכתב התביעה קיימת הודאת בעל דין לכך שהתובע לא העביר לידי הנתבעים 62,399$ כך שלא ברור כיצד ניתן לתבוע "השבה" של סכום שלא שולם לנתבעים מלכתחילה.
• The fact that the plaintiff is demanding more than 100% of the total principal of the (denied) debt as interest, especially in light of the fact that the lawsuit was filed at the end of 2022, while Noticeable delay, mainly to increase the amount of interest, is indicative of audacity. While the plaintiff is not entitled to the principal of the debt (which is denied), he is not entitled to even a single shekel for interest, certainly not when the plaintiff delayed and filed his claim many years after the agreement between the parties was signed.

In conclusion

1. This claim must be dismissed out of hand and/or on the merits.
2. The lawsuit was not duly served on the defendants and this honorable court has no jurisdiction to hear the lawsuit.
3. כפי שעולה בבירור מכתב התביעה ונספחיו, התובע, ולא הנתבעים, הוא זה שהפר את ההסכם מול הנתבעים. יש בפנינו הודאת בעל דין לכך שהתובע לא תרם דבר לנתבעים והפך (כהודאתו) "כנטל".
4. The plaintiff never followed the procedure set forth in the agreement for the transfer of the shares, nor did he allege otherwise in the statement of claim. This is sufficient to reject the plaintiff's claims of breach of the agreement by the defendants.
5. Even if the plaintiff had followed the procedure set out in the agreement, he would still not have been entitled to receive the shares in view of the fact that he had breached the agreement with the defendants, which, according to his admission, was a fundamental breach.
6. The plaintiff has no claim whatsoever regarding defendant 2 and it is not clear why she was included in the statement of claim.
7. For reasons of caution only, if the Honorable Court determines that the plaintiff is entitled to any payment, then the expenses incurred by the 1st defendant alone must be deducted from this amount, since the plaintiff abandoned the venture.
8. In light of all of the above, the Honorable Court is hereby requested to dismiss the lawsuit and to award the plaintiff legal costs and/or attorney's fees. In real values.