A Claim on Proper Grounds - Reversing the Burden of Persuasion and Evidence
- As may be recalled, the cause of action in our case is a note, by virtue of the promissory note signed by the plaintiff as collateral in favor of the plaintiff, to secure the payment of her fees in accordance with the agreement signed between the parties.
- Section 29(a) of the Banknotes Ordinance:
"Any party whose signature is found on the note is prima facie presumption that a party has been made to him in favor of value."
- Once the defendant signs the promissory note to secure payment of the plaintiff's fees by virtue of the agreement entered into between them, the burden is placed on him to contradict the presumption that he received full consideration for the amount stated in the promissory Therefore, in this judgment I will be required to decide whether the defendant met the burden of refuting his obligation to pay under the promissory note.
- In the meantime, I will have to address the question of whether any defect in the signing of the agreement and the deed has been proven, and if not, whether there was any reason for the defendant's cancellation of the agreement.
- I will address these questions below, in their order.
Was a defect proven in the signing of the agreement and the promissory note?
- I will begin by saying that the defendant did not dispute that his signature is the signature that appears on the agreement, on the power of attorney and on the promissory note (p. 6;
- In his testimony before me, he did try to claim that he signed the agreement due to a difficult economic situation, and that he did not actually read the agreement himself. When asked whether he reads agreements before signing them, he replied that he does not always rely on people, and when confronted with the agreement, the subject of our discussion confirmed that it was his signature, but added:
"Yes, it's through a computer and I didn't see this whole document, they just talked to me about it, about 500 shekels and they didn't talk to me about other amounts." (p. 6, paras. 25-26 per par).
- The defendant did not deny that he had received the entire mobile device agreement file, although he stated "Yes, I got it quickly." (p. 6, s. 30 of par), and during his testimony he added that:
"What they told me at the beginning is '500 shekels in blood,' what is it called? ' That's what they told me and the rest didn't tell me about the 50,000 shekels or things like that, they didn't talk to me about this thing at all, 'just sign,' and I'm in a situation where they're taking me and taking my house, everything was under pressure." (pp. 8, 1-4 per par). The defendant also did not confirm that he saw the obligation to pay an additional ILS 40,000 upon the signing of the agreement (p. 9, s. 11; and see also p. 13, s. 3-7 per part).