The plaintiff, who is a litigant, could easily have given his version of events and completely refuted the defendant's claims regarding his cognitive state and his inability to communicate and understand the actions that were asked to be performed in the bank account, but as stated, he refrained from testifying before me. This refusal acts in accordance with his duty and raises the suspicion that his refusal to testify was due to tactical considerations of a lack of desire to be exposed to his interrogation in court.
The medical certificate of Dr. Alexander Ginzburg (attached as an appendix to the reply) does not assist the plaintiff in this matter. In my decision of May 16, 2023, I determined that the medical certificate includes a medical conclusion regarding the plaintiff's cognitive state, and as such it constitutes a "medical matter". Since the medical certificate was not submitted in the form of an opinion, I determined in the aforementioned decision that it was ineligible to serve as evidence and the plaintiff's request to submit it and to testify against Dr. Ginzburg was denied.
- Thus, it was proven before me that in conversations with the defendant's representatives, the plaintiff did not give the defendant clear instructions, did not approve the action that was requested to be performed by his grandson, and did not understand its significance. It was also proven that in these meetings, the defendant's representatives identified signs of incompetence on the part of the plaintiff who showed difficulty in communicating and did not respond to the questions he was asked.
I am of the opinion that in view of the totality of the evidence and the testimonies, it has been proven that the defendant's representatives examined the plaintiff's request to issue a bank guarantee in a matter-of-fact and responsible manner. All the defendant's representatives asked for was to receive direct and direct instructions from the plaintiff regarding the execution of the requested action, and regarding his understanding of it, and his consent to it. This is a legitimate and reasonable demand of the defendant, and if his representatives had not done so, the defendant would have violated the duty of care imposed on him towards the plaintiff.