The plaintiff's arguments:
- In the framework of her arguments, the plaintiff does not deny that she signed the loan agreement, as well as its appendices on which a signature appears, but according to her claim - in the background of her signature, the defendant's demand to be artificially joined as a party to the loan - even though the plaintiff did not need a loan, in order to be able to mortgage the residential apartment in which the plaintiff has rights, as well as to avoid the application of the Fair Credit Law to the loan agreement - to the extent that it was signed only between the defendant and Bonim and Mogon & Feldman.
- According to the plaintiff, it was explained to her by her husband, prior to her signature, that the loan was required for the purpose of refinancing her existing mortgage on the apartment, and the plaintiff believed that there was an economic advantage to this loan over the existing loan secured by a mortgage in favor of Bank Leumi. The plaintiff further claims that at the time of signing the agreement, she appeared at her husband's request at the request of Adv. Yona Winder, that the duration of the signing did not exceed a few minutes and that nothing was explained to her and she was unable to understand what she was required to sign.
- According to the plaintiff, following the signing of the loan agreement, and in order to cover the interest on the loan collected by the defendant, her husband was forced to take out additional loans or extend the date for the repayment of the loans, in a way that only deepened the hole that the defendant had dug into the plaintiff. The plaintiff further argued in her summaries that even at the time of signing the agreements and the later appendices, the plaintiff was not given any explanations about the legal aspects and economic implications of the agreement, and the risks and critical implications for her residential apartment were not clarified, all in contravention of the provisions of section 3(a) of the Fair Credit Law, 5753-1993 (hereinafter: the "Fair Credit Law") and also, contrary to the provisions of the Consumer Protection Law, which prohibit deception or unfair influence.
- The plaintiff claims that the law of the loan agreement and its later appendices, as well as the mortgage deeds - which were signed by the plaintiff - are void. This is because they were signed on the basis of error, deception or oppression or in extreme bad faith, and therefore, they were lawfully cancelled in the cancellation notice of 24/5/23, all as detailed below.
- Thus, and first of all, the plaintiff argues that - contrary to the defendant's claims - she is not a borrower in accordance with the loan agreements, but rather her status is only that of a guarantor - and therefore, all the protections that apply to a guarantor by virtue of the Guarantee Law apply to her. With regard to this, it was argued that the agreements were signed by the plaintiff, without the defendant fulfilling her obligations of disclosure and care under the Guarantee Law. With regard to the plaintiff's status as a guarantor, it was argued that support for this status of the plaintiff can be found in the words "mutual guarantee" which were specified under the names of the borrowers in the loan agreement. It was argued that Mr. Tal Matuk, the witness on behalf of the defendant, was unable to deal with this inscription and did not know how to explain its meaning. Without derogating from the aforesaid, it was argued that the plaintiff's status should be examined substantially according to the circumstances of the signing of the agreement and not on the basis of the language of the agreement. It was argued that as to the circumstances of the signing of the agreement, according to Feldman's testimony, the plaintiff's addition to the agreement was done for the purpose of providing her residential apartment as collateral for the repayment of the loan. It was argued that given the aforesaid, it is only that its status in this agreement is that of a guarantor of the agreement and not of a borrower. It was argued that support for this can be found in the case law and in accordance with it, when a person mortgages an asset, and in particular a residential apartment, as a guarantee for another person's obligation, he is considered to be a guarantor of that obligation - in accordance with the provision of section 12 of the Pledge Law. It was argued that in light of this, the laws of guarantee should be applied to the relationship between that guarantor and the mortgagee, and accordingly, in light of this, the protections granted to a single guarantor should be applied in the context of this guarantor.
- According to the plaintiff, the defendant breached her duties towards her, both insofar as her status as a guarantor, and all the more so in her status as a guarantor. Thus, and first, the plaintiff claims that the defendant breached the duties of disclosure and explanation towards her. In this regard, it was argued that in accordance with the case law, a banking corporation, and all the more so an institution that provides non-bank loans, has a duty to disclose not only dry data regarding the transaction at hand, but also to the nature of the transaction that the borrower is about to execute, its legal aspects and the risks arising from it. Moreover, it was argued that such a corporation must also ensure that the customer understood the matter and should not rely on the fact that the client had the opportunity to read the document before signing. It was further argued that in accordance with the case law, the explanation must be equal to everyone in relation to the service provided, and moreover, the weaker the customer and the more dangerous the type of service is, the greater the duty of loyalty. It was argued that such disclosure and explanation obligations also originate in tort law, contract law and good faith laws. In light of all of the above, it was argued that the defendant is obligated to clarify to the plaintiff in a clear and clear manner the significance of the legal process she is taking, and in particular, while emphasizing the risk and the possible consequences, and to ensure that the plaintiff understands this. It was argued that the defendant could not rely in this matter on the fact that they were a couple.
- According to the plaintiff, the defendant breached the duties of disclosure and explanation and acted towards the plaintiff with gross negligence.
Thus, it was argued that the defendant did not verify that the plaintiff herself understood the documents she signed - support for this can be found in the testimonies of the witnesses on her behalf, who admitted that they did not speak to the plaintiff and did not explain to her the significance of the transaction. At the same time, the witnesses on behalf of the defendant testified that it was important to them that the plaintiff be represented by a lawyer, in order for him to take care of her interests, explain to her and protect her. It was argued that this testimony constitutes the defendant's admission that the agreement is so complex and complicated that in order to understand it, a person needs the services of a lawyer.