On the basis of this normative basis, I will examine whether the plaintiff has proven that she received the check in good faith.
- Of the data presented to the plaintiff at the time of the deduction, there was no data that aroused suspicion and obligated her to investigate deeper, and therefore there is no reason to determine that she closed her eyes and acted in bad faith. The plaintiff also fell victim to his sudden collapse, or the contractor's planned. The circumstances show that the collapse of the contractor, insofar as it was not a planned sting exercise, was sudden and rapid, while dragging a long trail of casualties, including the parties to this proceeding. A quick collapse of this kind, in which in September there is a representation that everything is fine, and about a month later the contractor fled the country, shows that the plaintiff did not know that there was a risk in the transaction, and it seems that she could not have known either. Had the plaintiff suspected a defect in the check or the contractor's continued activity, she would not have put her money on the deer fund and paid the contractor most of the amount of the check.
Therefore, the defendant was unable to contradict the plaintiff's evidence that she gave consideration for the check in good faith.
Confirmation call for the delivery of the check before the deduction is made
- As I clarified above, the plaintiff has no obligation to call the drawer of the check before executing a discounting transaction, and this action is done for the plaintiff's business needs, and not to protect the drawer of the check. Content of such a conversation, In many cases, the check holder will refrain from denying his knowledge about the transfer of the check to a discounting transaction, and in cases Others He will also silence him from paying the check, even if there are other defects in it (cf. Judgment in a Civil Case (Shalom Ash( 2483-01-21 A.B. Credit Center Ltd. v. Anat Avtan Amar, [Nevo], September 14, 2023, in which a check puller was silenced despite doubt as to whether she had signed it). On the basis of this purpose of the conversation, the content of the conversation between the plaintiff's representative, Assi Shemesh, and the defendant must be examined.
From listening to the conversation and reviewing the transcript, it appears that the defendant is aware that the check was transferred to the plaintiff, which is a public finance company for the purpose of discounting. Assi also notes that Oren the contractor is in front of him at the time of the call. The defendant confirms that the contractor carried out construction work for her. Assi goes over the details of the check and the defendant confirms that the check was registered "in favor of Chai Maor Towers or Opel Balance". At the end of the conversation, he asks if she is prepared to pay the check, which is for a considerable sum, and the defendant confirms and even says on her own initiative that the contractor is building for them and even confirms that the check is for work that has been performed. The defendant in fact confirms that the discount transaction can be executed, even if it did not understand its nature, and that the check will be paid on the due date.