The defendant acted in good faith, out of relevant considerations and as part of his duty to protect the plaintiff's interest as well as his own affairs.
The defendant further argues that his decision to cancel the plaintiff's credit card is consistent with section 2(a) of the Banking Law (Terms of Service), which states that there is no obligation to provide a service that constitutes the provision of credit to the customer. Therefore, and in the absence of an obligation to provide such a service, the defendant does not have the burden of proving the reasonableness of his decision to cancel the credit card. Without derogating from this, the defendant claims that he acted reasonably.
In any event, the defendant issued the plaintiff a debit credit card. The defendant states that he offered to issue the plaintiff a regular credit card as he had before the cancellation, in exchange for financial collateral. However, since the plaintiff did not deposit the funds as required, he was not issued a regular credit card.
The Evidence
- On behalf of the plaintiff, Mr. Timothy Vishnevsky, the plaintiff's grandson, and Ms. Tatiana Vishnevsky, the plaintiff's daughter, testified before me. The plaintiff himself refrained from testifying.
On behalf of the defendant, Ms. Anna Guttin and Ms. Michaela Horn, the deputy managers of the Kfar Saba branch, testified before me on various dates relevant to the lawsuit.
Discussion and Decision
- Thus, at the center of the investigation of the claim are two main issues: the blocking of the bank account held in the plaintiff's name at the defendant's branch, and the cancellation of the credit card in his possession.
- I will therefore discuss these issues in their order.
Blocking your bank account
- As stated, according to the plaintiff, on April 12, 2022, the defendant informed him that he had decided to block the bank account, and his account was blocked.
However , an examination of the bank account statements (attached to the file exhibited on behalf of the defendant) shows that the bank account continued to operate as usual after that date and various actions were carried out on it. For example, a number of bank transfers of various amounts were made on April 20, 2022, April 21, 2022, April 26, 2022, and May 8, 2022, as well as cash withdrawals on May 12, 2022). This is inconsistent with the plaintiff's claim that the bank account was blocked, and this is sufficient to bring about the rejection of this claim of the plaintiff.