In other words, a financial commitment will bind the municipality only if four cumulative conditions are met: a written undertaking, a signature by the mayor, a signature by the municipality's treasurer, and the municipality's seal.
- The ruling is (CA 5210/08 Adv. Zerach Rosenblum v. Hevel Modi'in Local Council, [Nevo] at paragraph 22 and the case law cited therein, hereinafter - the Rosenblum case) that -
"The form requirement in section 203 of the Municipalities Ordinance is a constitutional substantive form requirement and not an evidentiary technical requirement... A contract entered into in contravention of the requirement of the form set forth in the section is not binding on the authority. In addition, it was determined that this is a contract whose conclusion is illegal, and therefore it is a void contract, as stated in section 30 of the Contracts Law... The remedies in the case of an illegal contract are determined in accordance with the provision of section 31 of the Contracts Law..."
- In application for our purposes - in the absence of a written agreement, in any case the requirement in section 203 of the Municipalities Ordinance is not met, and hence we are dealing with an illegal "contract" that is considered null and void and therefore the provision of section 31 of the Contracts (General Part) Law, 5733-1973 is fulfilled in respect of it, which reads as follows:
"The provisions of sections 19 and 21 shall apply, with the necessary modifications, also to the annulment of a contract under this chapter, but in the case of nullity under section 30, the court may, if it deems it justified to do so and under the conditions it deems appropriate, exempt a party from the obligation under section 21, in whole or in part, and to the extent that one party has performed its obligation under the contract, to obligate the other party to perform the counter-obligation. In whole or in part"
- Since one party (the plaintiff) has performed its obligation "in accordance with the contract" (supreme planning and supervision) and since sections 19 and 21 of the Contracts Law (which deal with 'partial cancellation' or 'restitution after cancellation') are not relevant to our case, the question that arises is whether it is justified to obligate the other party (the defendant) to fulfill the counter-obligation (the payment) in whole or in part.
- In the aforementioned Rosenblum case (paragraph 29, ibid.), it was held that:
"In cases such as the case before us, in which a certain person entered into a contract with an authority that contradicts the provisions of section 203 of the Municipalities Ordinance for the provision of services or the performance of work, and the service or work was performed, I am of the opinion that the rule is that there is no reason to instruct the authority to pay the full consideration agreed upon between the parties... Giving full consideration means giving full validity to the contract between the parties... I do not rule out the possibility that there will be exceptions to this rule in exceptional cases, but these cases should be extremely rare."