This, too, the defendant claimed, and the plaintiff did not dispute this and did not even present evidence that contradicts the evidence presented by the defendant, that the Builders and Protectors Company was the one that bore the current repayments for the loan in the sum of ILS 1,954,497 plus a tax appeal - a fact that also supports the financial capabilities of this company at that time.
The plaintiff further claimed - in the context of the approval of her signature by an external lawyer in the case at hand - that - the defendant deliberately - requested that the plaintiff not come to her office to sign and directed her to sign in front of an external lawyer. Since the defendant knew that at the time of signing, the defendant would have to explain to the plaintiff the nature of the loan that she signed and its risks (see, for example, the plaintiff's argument on page 95 of the minutes). According to the plaintiff, these circumstances support her claim that in the present case, the defendant's conduct - in her attempt to shirk her responsibility while relying on the approval of an external lawyer - is lacking in good faith and should not be accepted. I do not find this argument of the plaintiff to be accepted first, since it is inconsistent with common sense. Thus, insofar as the plaintiff's approach is true, the defendant sought to mislead the plaintiff - why did the defendant refer the plaintiff to sign before an external attorney, over whom the defendant has no control and who can warn the plaintiff of the risks in the transaction?! Could the defendant have foreseen that this lawyer would not perform his duties properly and would not clarify to the plaintiff the risks involved in the transaction?! Insofar as this was the defendant's "plot", would the defendant have taken a risk by turning to such an external lawyer?! The answer to all these questions is clear - obviously not. Moreover, the plaintiff's claim was in any case denied in the testimony of Feldman - her husband, who testified that the reason why the defendant asked the borrowers to sign in front of an attorney on her behalf was that they would not deny their signatures in the future (see his testimony on page 111, lines 30-33) - i.e., exactly the opposite of the plaintiff's claiMs. This witness also testified that it is reasonable to assume that he also explained this to his wife - to the plaintiff (see his testimony on page 112, lines 1-10).