There are those who include the decision on the question in the framework of examining the integrity or appearance of the document and receiving a missing or notarized check, in which case there is a basis for concern that something is wrong. (T.A. Civil Appeal 40107/07 Shahaf Levi Financial Ltd. v. Munder Eyal [Nevo] (22.10.08), some recognize the expectation of the deductor of the check to find out how the check came to the bearer or to conduct an examination regarding the existence of liens relating to the assets of the payee (Cell (Fire( 62189-06-13 Balaban v. Toledano [Nevo] (16.12.15), Miscellaneous Civil Applications (Tel Aviv( 1348/05 Impolite Ltd. v. A. Zumen Ltd. [Nevo] (6 June 2005), and there are those who see the duty of the disabled person to contact a passing drawer to receive the check, as part of the obligation to reduce the damage [although not more than what is required from a reasonable holder, T.A. (Civil Appeal( 57191/06 Barak Food Services Ltd. v. Nahum Uri [Nevo] (21.5.08(] or as part of the obligation of good faith and its negation, where it has been proven that if such an examination had been carried out, the check deductor would have refrained from executing the discounting transaction.
[See Objection to the Execution of Deed 209976-09 Shahaf Financial Accompaniment Import-Export (1990( Ltd. v. Eitan [Nevo] (19.10.12( Veteran Civil Case in Expedited Proceedings (2844/07 IRN). Israel Ltd. v. Meirowitz [Nevo] (March 24, 2010(
Those who are stringent are of the opinion that there is an increased obligation on the person who deducts a check to check the validity of the check beyond the usual obligation of the recipient of an incomplete note, and to ascertain the existence of authorization for completion.
[See Civil Case (Tel Aviv( 120154/00 Yafit HaFit Financial Services v. Yaacobi [Nevo] (2.12.01( 53439-09-12 H. Alma Business Entrepreneurship Ltd. v. Maya Koltyniuk [Nevo] (9.9.14( "
- In my opinion, care should be taken of establishing a new duty of care, which is not set forth in the Banknotes Ordinance, which set a criterion for the status of a proper holder, in good faith. The defendant's attorney's referral Civil Appeal 3521/11 Adv. Daniel Wagner v. Mazal Abdi, IsrSC 67(1( 84 (2014), which discussed in general how the tort of negligence should be proved., It does not determine that it is appropriate to establish a duty of care on the plaintiff in the case at hand, which deviates from the aspect that must be performed in relation to the innocence of the core. On the merits of the matter, I did not find room to establish an increased duty of care, when the claim that the plaintiff is the better harm prevention is incorrect. The defendant could have prevented the "legal accident" if it had not issued a check and allowed the contractor to write the identity of the payee as he wished.
In fact, it is requested that the plaintiff's duty of care towards the drawer of the check be greater than her duty towards herself. The plaintiff's very appeal to the drawer of the check was intended to protect herself and ensure that the drawer of the check was aware that he had given a check and that it was expected to be paid. I did not find that it is appropriate to impose on the withholding of the check an obligation to explain to the drawer of the check that if he gave a deferred check, he may be obligated to pay it even if he does not receive consideration from the party closest to the check. This is a measure that is contrary to the plaintiff's commercial interest, and exceeds the scope of the duty of good faith as interpreted in the case law in relation to a proper holder. We are dealing with the laws of banknotes that should not be burdened with debts that negate the negotiable nature of a check. The entire purpose of a discount transaction is the absence of a connection between the person who made the transaction and the drawer of the check, and the plaintiff, who knows that she is in the position of a proper holder, is not supposed to investigate more than herself.