In these circumstances, the plaintiff, who sought to see the defendant as someone who admitted to the transactions in light of the acquittal of them, cannot be heard claiming that the transactions are valid from the moment she cancels the invoices and returns the money she paid. The plaintiff did not clarify what that "temporary cancellation" was, did not refer to a provision of the law, and did not present evidence that allows the temporary cancellation of the invoices as distinct from a non-temporary cancellation. In these circumstances, the cancellation of the invoices by the plaintiff shows that on her part, too, the transaction was cancelled in a manner consistent with the testimony of Dr. Dan.
- Before I conclude, I will add that the defendant added arguments in the affidavit of the main witness on her behalf regarding sums that she had to raise in the framework of the objection, and it was not clarified why this was not done in this way. Therefore, I accept the plaintiff's position that this is an extension of the front and these arguments will not be examined.
It should also be noted that the defendant raised an argument that she had neglected in her summaries and therefore it was not discussed, and it appears that it was redundant in light of the conclusions of the judgment.
Conclusion and Decision
- The lawsuit before her is a note. In these circumstances, the defendant was supposed to bear the burden of persuasion that it was not liable to pay the checks for which he was sued. The defendant denied liability and made claims on various grounds, from the theft and forgery of the checks to the completion of the checks without her consent and the failure of the consideration. In practice, the defendant did not bring sufficient evidence to prove her version. The defendant also did not bring evidence to prove her claims regarding the plaintiff's conduct in a similar manner towards other customers, despite her claim that she would bring witnesses.
I will clarify that the lack of evidence on the part of the defendant, beyond the sweeping denial of the order of the goods, in contrast to the plaintiff's detailed description of the desire to cooperate in the venture in other countries as well, raises questions and cannot be ruled out that a transaction was made between the plaintiff and the defendant, since the parties do not deny that there was a business relationship between them and that there was a reckoning between them.