Our team represents а- confectionery retailer in a case concerning a promissory note that is claimed by the applicant to have been issued by our client and signed by the manager of the company, who had passed away several months before the claim was issued. Our client did not recognize the note.Our team defended the client on the case that the the signature is inauthentic and is not done by the manager. The court of first instance refused to do an expertise of the signature and approved the promissory note. Our lawyers then appealed infront of the Appleate court, where an expertise of the signature was allowed. The initial expertise of the signature concluded that it was indeed placed by the compan’s manager. However, our team insisted that the signature was re-examined by a committee of three experts from the Research Insitute of Forensic Science and Criminology at the Ministry of Interior. The experts committee concluded that the signature is inauthentic and was not placed by the company’s manager. Our lawyers further required that the applicant present proof to indicate a cause for the promissory note. . Our team presented arguments for the lack of grounds for issuing the promissory note, as there are no valid existing relationships between the company, our client, and the party that claimed the promissory note.The two parties then raised a dispute over the need of the issuing of the promissory note and and its causality. Both parties rely on the the Supreme Court practice, which served to form the interpretative work on the questions of causality.
The Court of Appeals abated the decision and dismissed the promissory note.
Practice: Litigation
