Summary of the parties' arguments
- The appellants claim that the written requirement in section 9 The law is purely evidentiary, and is intended to prove that the confession was indeed given by the defendant. Therefore, according to them, a recording by means of a reliable device that fully reflects the facts fulfills the said evidentiary purpose; and that in this regard, there is no significance to the question of the speaker's awareness that he is being recorded. The appellants emphasize that the recordings in question prove that the respondents' confession satisfies the conditions set out in the case law regarding the content required of a confession under Section 9 to the law. The appellants add that the respondents presented them with a false representation regarding their willingness to repay the debt, in order to prevent the appellants from taking action on it until the end of the limitation period. It was argued that this conduct of the respondents constitutes an abuse of legal proceedings and a breach of the duty of good faith, in a manner that justifies rejecting the claim of limitation even in the absence of a written admission by the respondents, due to the "cry of fairness" that arises from the circumstances of the present case.
- On the other hand, the respondents rely on the judgment of the District Court. It was argued that the written requirement in section 9 The law is substantive, and is intended to ensure that the defendant gave his confession not hastily and out of discretion to admit the plaintiff's right. The respondents add that in any event, the content of the recordings in question does not indicate that they admit the right of the appellants. In this context, it was argued, inter alia, that, unlike the appellants, the respondents were not represented by an attorney during the conversations that were recorded; and that the appellants planned the course of the conversation in a tendentious manner, in order to "put things" in the respondents' mouths. The respondents further claim that they did not misrepresent or abused their right to claim the statute of limitations.
Discussion and Decision
- As explained above, the proceeding before us focuses on the question of whether a recording of oral statements, in circumstances such as in our case, satisfies the established written requirement In section 9 Law The Statute of Limitations. As will be detailed below, I am of the opinion that this question should be answered in the negative, and therefore the appeal should be dismissed, and thus I will suggest to my colleagues that it should be fired.
The Normative Framework
- As is well known, the statute of limitations for a cause of action begins, as a rule, "on the day the cause of action was born" (Section 6 Law The Statute of Limitations). An exception to this rule is fixed In section 9 of the law, which is at the center of the appeal before us and directs as follows:
| Admitting the existence of a right |