Indeed, in the conversation there is no explanation by the plaintiff's representative, Rachel, your little daughter, what a deduction transaction is. There is no question as to whether consideration has been received for the deferred check, and what the contractor must do in order to be entitled to repay the check. At the same time, I did not find that these matters negate the good faith of the plaintiff, which is being examined on the date of receipt of the check.
In terms of the conversation and the circumstances, I did not find a breach of the duty of care towards the defendant or a lack of good faith on the part of the plaintiff. The purpose of the conversation is mainly to ensure that the drawer of the check is aware of its delivery to the plaintiff, that the check was registered at the plaintiff's order, and that she intends to repay it on the date of payment, and that this is a genuine transaction. The defendant had an opportunity in the conversation to ask questions or to talk to the contractor who was present next to Assi, but chose not to do so. It can be assumed that the contractor asked her to authorize the plaintiff to make a discount transaction by check.
The examination of the plaintiff's representatives only strengthened the conclusion that the person who was harmed by this conversation was the plaintiff, who relied on the defendant's representation that she had delivered the check to the plaintiff's order, for work that had been done, and that she would repay the check on the date of its payment. This is what Danny Mizrahi testified (p. 4, s. 16, and also at p. 22), as did Assi Shemesh (p. 31, s. 18).
Therefore, I did not find that the preliminary conversation negates the plaintiff's good faith.
Conclusion
- The defendant withdrew a check at the order of the contractor and the plaintiff, even though she had no business relationship with it, and thus took the risk that she would be obligated to pay the check even if she did not receive consideration from the contractor. I am unable to accept the argument that the contractor added the plaintiff's name as a payee without the plaintiff's consent. Even if he had done so, the contractor's deviation from his authorization does not impair the obligation to repay him to the proper occupant.
Although the defendant did not receive consideration for the check, since the plaintiff is properly holding the check, the defendant is obligated to repay the check.