After examining the defendant's testimony in its entirety, I found that her claim that he did not receive consideration for the check was not contradicted.
As stated above, I am unable to accept the plaintiff's argument in her summaries that this is a partial and indefinite failure of consideration, since the defendant's claim that for the services specified in the agreement, overpayments were made was not contradicted.
Therefore, the defendant proved that there was a failure of consideration in the relationship between her and the contractor, and therefore the burden shifted to the plaintiff to prove that she was in proper possession of the check.
- In light of this conclusion, there is no need to examine the other witnesses, despite the low weight of the testimony of Gideon, who testified about himself that he had memory impairment due to a stroke.
In support of the plaintiff's version, Engineer Oded Kahlon, who supervised the construction work after the contractor's abandonment, from November 2022, testified, and declared that the lot was empty, except for a number of drillings, which he estimated to cost about ILS 20, 000. Although both parties ignored this testimony in their summaries, the witness was interrogated and his testimony was not contradicted, and this testimony supports the conclusion that long before the check was delivered, the contractor had already been overpaid, and therefore it is possible to accept the argument that no consideration was given for the check that is the subject of the claim.
The Status of the Plaintiff - The Mother Holding Properly
- The conditions for the status of a valid holder are set out in the section 28 (a( To the Banknotes Ordinance:
(a( A proper holder is a holder who took the note when it was intact and in good condition according to its appearance and under the following conditions:
(1( He became the holder of the deed before its time had passed, and he had no knowledge that the deed had been desecrated beforehand, if indeed it had been desecrated.