Civil Case (Tel Aviv) 848-06-23 Yaffa Feldman v. Fresh Concept – Strategies for Original Thinking Ltd. - part 23

This failure of the plaintiff to detail the circumstances of the signing in the other cases in which she signed the loans applies even more strongly with regard to two factors - first, the fact that a long period of time has elapsed between the signing of the first loan agreement and the plaintiff's continued signatures on the appendices as well as on the debt arrangements.  This period of time allowed the plaintiff - to the extent she wished - to examine the essence of the loan agreement she signed and its significance.  Second, in the framework of her arguments, the plaintiff raises many claims against Adv. Winder, whose signature she claims did not explain to her the nature of the loan and the risks involved in it.  However, as detailed - the verification of the plaintiff's signature in front of an attorney and the confirmation of an attorney according to which the terms and nature of the loan were explained to the plaintiff - was done not only on a one-time basis by Adv. Winder, but on a number of occasions by Adv. Winder, and in addition - as detailed in paragraph 14 above of the judgment - on March 11, 2018 by Adv. Melman, on November 11, 2018 by Adv. Tal Metuk, and on January 13, 2019 by Adv. Sagi Dekel.  As for these three attorneys (and not with regard to her signatures before Adv. Winder on occasions other than signing the loan agreement) - the plaintiff did not elaborate that they too did not explain to her the nature of the loan and the risks involved in it.  I will note that in the summaries of the reply on her behalf, the plaintiff argues that the defendant should have brought these attorneys to testify, since, according to her, the defendant's claims, according to which the nature of the transaction and the risks involved in it were explained to the plaintiff, constitute "confession and dismissal" claiMs. I cannot accept this argument - firstly, since, in my approach, and in accordance with case law, it is the plaintiff's signature on the documents that establishes a presumption that this signature binds the plaintiff.  This presumption places the burden on the plaintiff to prove that the presumption was revoked.  Without derogating from what has been said, I do not find much in the argument - given that while the plaintiff did not present in the affidavit any version regarding these additional signing events, she did not present any version that negates what is written.  In any case, the plaintiff did not present any version against the written approvals of the lawyers, according to which the nature of the transaction was explained to the plaintiff.