3.8.21 - 100, 000 ₪
29.12.21 - 350, 000 ₪
20.1.22 - ILS 150, 000, maturity date 20.1.2022.
11.4.22 - 150, 000 ILS, maturity 20.4.22
3.5.22 - ILS 250, 000, due 1.10.22 (check that is the subject of the claim)
26.7.22 - ILS 250, 000, maturity date 2.8.22.
20.9.22 - 250, 000 ILS, bank transfer
As claimed in the plaintiff's affidavit, ILS 1, 250, 000 was paid to the company, and from the aforementioned details it appears that the sums were paid from August 3, 2021 to September 20, 2022. Two payments were transferred to the contractor after the check that is the subject of the claim, and were paid before the date of its payment. The check in question is an exception in the payment landscape as it is the only one with a repayment date far from the date of its delivery.
Attached to the affidavit were photos from April 2022 of which drilling and piles can be seen, and from November 2022 a kind of basic pouring in the ground was predicted. It was claimed that the check was given in respect of future construction work that was not carried out. A building permit was also attached, which was given only on October 3, 2022, in order to prove that the company did not give consideration for the check, while it did not even handle the receipt of the permit.
Copied from Nevo
Although the plaintiff sufficed with a concise detail of the claim that the check was given for future work that was not performed, the nature of which was not specified at all, but the claims detailed in the affidavit, which were not concealed, are sufficient to determine that even before the check was delivered, the company was paid more money, far beyond the performance stages of the contract. In the circumstances of the case, the plaintiff's testimony, the details of the payments, and the documentation from the field, can suffice to prove the failure of the consideration.
The plaintiff knows, after the fact, that the defendant's story about the contractor's exploits is true, since he executed a number of transactions with her, guarantor of checks for which he made a deduction, and remained in debt to the plaintiff large sums. (It should be noted that the contractor, who at this stage is apparently still abroad, is conducting an insolvency proceeding as part of a case Citation 65223-03-24 in which an order was issued on May 12, 2024 to open proceedings at the request of a creditor).
- Indeed, in the interrogation of the defendant and her husband there were inaccuracies and even contradictions, but I did not find that these were contradictions that go to the root of the version that the contractor deceived them, with false promises and partial language, and caused them to transfer large amounts of payments to him and at a considerable rate, far beyond the dates they were supposed to pay in accordance with the agreement. This is the nature of fraud, or "sting" , During these activities, they create a false representation, and the defendants fell into the trap set by the contractor and transferred a lot of money without the construction progressing.
In her cross-examination, the defendant clarified that she had signed a number of checks, but usually when her husband was present, it was he who spoke to the contractor. The defendant did not know how to describe in detail the work carried out by the contractor until she handed him the check that was the subject of the lawsuit, and claimed that he had done several drillings that in retrospect turned out to be unusable, and therefore in fact did nothing.