On the other hand, the interpretation that the plaintiff wishes to accept is not learned from the provisions of the contract or with the logic of the matter, and with the exception of the testimony of Mr. Fahoum, it is not even supported by the witnesses brought by the plaintiff herself (and see, inter alia, the testimony of Mr. Fares at pp. 24-25 and at pp. 28-29 of the minutes of the hearing).
- And if this is not enough, then the sum itself to which the plaintiff claims was not proved by her.
The plaintiff's position that the 'work delivery' component constitutes 15% of the consideration while the 'supreme supervision' component constitutes 10% of the consideration, has not been provided with any support, other than the testimony of Mr. Fahoum, which is insufficient in this regard.
It should be noted that the plaintiff did not attach the "customary price lists in the field" (see p. 3, paras. 37-38) or an expert opinion in support of her arguments in this matter, and this should be attributed to her.
Shazar Junction Project
00
- 0There is no dispute that a written contract was not signed between the parties regarding this project, that the project was executed and that the plaintiff provided supreme planning and supervision services as she was asked to do by the defendant (see, inter alia, the words of the plaintiff's counsel at p. 40, paras. 7-8 and the defendant's counsel at p. 40, paras. 11-12).
In other words, there is no dispute about the parties' engagement regarding this project in which the plaintiff provided the work required of it, but no written contract was signed between the parties regulating the terms of the engagement.
- The dispute between the parties concerns the question of whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation for her work despite the absence of a written contract.
It should be said right now - I am satisfied that this question should be answered in the affirmative and that the defendant should be obligated to pay the plaintiff her wages, albeit at a significantly lower rate than that of the defendant by her, and as will be clarified below.
- Section 203(a) of the Municipalities Ordinance [New Version] states that:
"A contract, a letter of undertaking, a settlement arrangement submitted to a court or tribunal in order to obtain the validity of a judgment or other certificate of the type prescribed by the Minister in the Regulations and which contains a financial commitment on behalf of the Municipality, shall not be binding unless they are signed in the name of the Municipality, alongside the stamp of the Municipality, the Mayor and the Treasurer..."