Court Rules Against Company Over Altered Check, Orders Payment for Services

A business dispute between two Israeli companies, Bnei Fuad Asli and Tzach Nahum Ofer, over a bounced check and unpaid services culminated in a ruling by the Magistrate's Court in Hadera. The core of the conflict involved a check for NIS 80,187, the last of three checks totaling approximately NIS 240,000 issued by Tzach Nahum to Asli. The dispute arose when the final check, intended for January 30, 2024, was allegedly post-dated to 2023. Tzach Nahum claimed Asli altered the date without permission and subsequently canceled the check. Asli initiated collection proceedings, but the court found Asli's account of the date alteration inconsistent and unreliable, noting multiple contradictory statements from Asli's representative. The court accepted Tzach Nahum's version that an Asli representative altered the check, rendering it invalid under the Bills of Exchange Ordinance as the alteration was made without the debtor's consent.

Despite the dismissal of the claim based on the altered check, Asli also sued Tzach Nahum for NIS 130,663 for services and materials provided. Tzach Nahum contested this, alleging improper documentation and that cheaper materials were supplied. However, the court found discrepancies in Tzach Nahum's claims regarding authorized signatories and reviewed accounting records from both parties. The court's comparison of the accounting ledgers indicated a debt owed by Tzach Nahum to Asli, validating Asli's claim for services rendered.

Tzach Nahum also filed a counterclaim for NIS 165,000, alleging defamation due to the bounced check and subsequent freezing of its accounts. The judge ruled that legal proceedings, including debt collection and account freezes, are considered 'privileged publication' under defamation law. Furthermore, as Tzach Nahum was found to owe money to Asli, the collection efforts were deemed legitimate, even if the method involving the faulty check was flawed. The court found no objective evidence of damage to Tzach Nahum's business and concluded that the company's own poor management was responsible for any reputational harm.

Ultimately, the court dismissed Tzach Nahum's claim regarding the check and the defamation suit, while fully accepting Asli's claim for unpaid services. No costs were awarded to either party. The ruling highlighted the risks of informal business practices and inadequate accounting management.