One of the lost cases in my legal career. A person addresses me. We need to collect the debt on the receipt. Who does not know - one of the easiest things. The court always sides with the person who gave the money. So, a man comes with a receipt. Tells, gave to a friend to borrow money, he wrote a receipt, and returns. Wants to recover through court. Okay, I'm doing it right. First judicial session. Comes a friend and says he never took. On this, there is always a return move - handwriting examination. Familiar agree. By the way, who does not know, according to the law, if a person evades the examination, the court has the right to make a decision in favor of the plaintiff and without examination, this is specifically done so that the person does not evade the examination. Expertise is carried out in the state expert institution. Expert conclusion: no, the defendant did not write a receipt and did not put a signature. The case is lost. Starting to torture the plaintiff. Tells: Rings familiar, calling to him. At home he, with a friend, says - I know that you sold the car and you have money at home. Lend me 300,000, on receipt. My friend is ready right now the machine for 500 000 to sell for 300 000, because he urgently needed money for an operation his daughter. I'll return 350,000 in six months. Well, the claimant was filled, ran home, after leaving the data for receipts. Returns with money, the receipt is ready. Gives the money, takes the receipt. Since the court is lost, I assume that the receipt was written by a friend. The conclusion is that all documents must be signed (or written, if by hand) in your presence. And I, now, always ask clients, in his presence whether the document was written. You can accuse me that I then wasn't such #skilled, but in those years I didn't take money forward, and business it was impossible to #win .