00
Therefore, the plaintiff satisfies the condition that she received a proper and complete deed according to its appearance, and the second condition is also fulfilled that she received the deed before its expiry of time and the deed was not forfeited beforehand.
Was the deed changed without authorization, the question of good faith, and should an additional duty of care be imposed on the plaintiff?
- In fact, the defendant's claim is against the plaintiff's good faith, which, according to her, acted in bad faith, did not conduct sufficient checks, and misled the defendant in the conversation that preceded the execution of the discount transaction. However, the defendant relies mainly on another claim, that at the time she signed the deed in front of the contractor, the plaintiff's name was not registered as a payee, and this was subsequently added without her knowledge or authorization. According to her, such a change in the deed that was printed with the inscription "to the beneficiary only" constitutes a material change that expropriates the deed since it negates the original purpose that the check will be paid only to the contractor.
I am unable to accept this argument, neither from the factual aspect nor from the legal aspect. Likewise, I cannot accept the argument that this is similar to a claim of forgery and the burden is on the plaintiff to prove that the note was not changed after it was signed. The plaintiff enjoys the presumption of proper possession, including the provisions of section 64(a( of the Banknotes Ordinance:
"A deed or receipt in which a material change has been made without the consent of all the parties who are liable under the deed, the deed is canceled, but not to a party who made the change himself, or authorized it to be made or agreed to, and not to the parties thereafter; However, where a substantial change has been made in the deed, but the change is not visible, and the deed is in the hands of a proper holder, that holder can use the deed as if no change had been made to it, and he can enforce its repayment according to his original writing."