ix. 42. Following the agreement, the Claimant booked a flight to Israel for that night. It left at 10.00pm. He departed for the airport at about 6.00pm. He flew out to Jerusalem that night, arriving the next day (24 th) and expected to receive the dollars at the first banking day after the holiday period. He expected to receive the money from the First Defendant who he understood was travelling out to Jerusalem personally in a few days. By contrast the First Defendant says: i. In December as in October the assistance to be offered to the Trust by the Claimant was by way of outright donation and not a loan. ii. The funds he was soliciting for, were for the general charitable purposes of the charity in Israel, were unconnected with the purchase or refurbishment of Craven Park Road, and were not solicited because of urgent financial crisis or short term credit difficulty. There was no mention of Craven Park Road at the meeting on the 23rd December. iii. The sums to be given were identified by the Claimant and not by the First Defendant. He merely wrote them down as requested. iv. It is not necessarily unusual for donors to give to the charity sums of money that are expressed otherwise than in round sums. v. The idea of a separate donation in dollars was the Claimant’s and his interest in the exchange rates was probably because he wanted to make his donation as valuable as possible. vi. The £202,407.95 sum was identified during the call to the solicitors and the Defendant understood that it represented the whole of the balance in certain business accounts controlled by Claimant. He understood that both sums came from the accounts of companies although he could not ascertain which at the meeting as this was broken up when the Claimant’s assistant and driver arrived to say that he needed to travel. vii. The reference in the agreement to a loan, was an associated transaction where the Claimant had indicated that if he donated to the charity he might well need a loan at a favourable rate and the First Defendant undertook to assist him in securing one, particularly using Mr. Fisher. viii. The order of events according to the First Defendant was; a discussion, the call to Mr. Fisher, a telephone call to David Wineman and a confirmatory fax also sent to Mr. Wineman and then the written agreement was drawn up and signed. ix. The First Defendant stated that the reason why the money in the written agreement was changed was that the Claimant confirmed to him while the agreement was being drawn up the precise sums that the solicitor had transferred. x. After the meeting in the office the First Defendant spoke to Mr. Weiss the Third Defendant, and instructed him to make transfers to Israel.