the Claimant's case is that this was a relationship based on personal contact and where the charity represented it had a pressing need for funds. The Claimant may well be somewhat naïve in imagining that the memorandum clearly and satisfactorily recorded the true nature of the agreements that he alleges existed in respect of either sum of money, but that commercial naivety may need to be assessed in the context of the background noted above. 80. These conclusions are further supported by the evidence of Mr Fisher called by the Defendants and whose evidence was heard on live link from Israel. His evidence was given in a clear and forthright manner. His evidence is of some importance although it relates only to a small part of the case. He had never met or heard of Rabbi Meisels before the telephone call on the 23rd December. He was very used to dealing with Mr. Lichtman and had almost daily telephone calls with him and acted on his instructions with respect to withdrawals and payments from the Trust’s Israeli bank account. He had experience of banks, business opportunities and the regulatory scheme for international transfers in Israel. He acted on a commercial basis for the Trust and if introduced to someone by Mr. Lichtman would offer his commercial services and advice to that other business. 81. The conversation he had with Rabbi Meisels on this occasion lasted a minute or so. It was put to him by Mr. Crystal that this was a business call. His reply was in the following terms:“I don’t know if it was a business call or not. I think Mr. Lichtman wanted to calm down Mr Meisels, I was presented with someone who said he was Meisels” (emphasis supplied) He subsequently declared that he was not a psychologist and cannot say what Mr. Lichtman’s motives were in asking Rabbi Meisels to speak to him. 82. The impression that Mr. Fisher had of the purposes of Mr. Lichtman asking Mr Fisher to speak to Rabbi Meisels is a pointer to the nature of the first of the two transactions. Why would any re-assurance be needed of the charity’s ability to convert money into dollars if the transaction was merely a donation by a generous donor to the general purposes of the charity? It is also of potential significance that Rabbi Meisels was never introduced to Mr. Fisher as a donor. If there was a need for calming down or reassurance this was likely to be in the context of the anxiety of Rabbi Meisels to understand whether dollars were immediately available at the Israel end of the transaction. It is impossible to see why that should be of importance if this was a conversation leading to a mutually agreed gift. 83. There was another aspect of Mr Fisher’s evidence that may be informative. He gave evidence that he was never a trustee of YLJT as averred by the First Defendant. It seems that his signature to the trust documents was obtained by way of misunderstanding as to what the First Defendant told him he was signing. Mr Fisher thought he was being made a signatory to the bank account for ease of commercial arrangement. He never agreed to be a trustee. The First Defendant says he did. This is not a central issue in the case but it provides some evidence of the First Defendant being over optimistic in interpreting what others have agreed to.