However, as I emphasized above, the set of rules is much broader, and the overall wording and the words chosen to express the intention of the communicators must be addressed with a comprehensive and in-depth view, which penetrates the purpose of the legislation or the letter of agreement and the purpose that they sought to achieve. Therefore, we found quite a few exceptions to the initial and simplistic rule, which was referred to by counsel for the Respondent, and it will become clear that in the appropriate case it is permissible and proper to give the letter a liberal interpretation, even if it is ostensibly contrary to the explicit words, as written in the statement of policy. This is in order to reach the logical and true meaning to which the contractors intended in the letter of policy, and thus, of course, when a comprehensive reading of the text leads us to the conclusion that the words in their literal sense do not represent the intention of the text."
These words, which were said regarding the interpretation of an insurance policy, are also true with regard to the interpretation of contracts in general. It seems to me that the case before us is one of those cases in which it is permissible and appropriate to give a letter of liberal interpretation, even if it ostensibly contradicts the explicit words, in order to reach the logical and true meaning to which the parties intended.
- I have examined the comprehensive opinion of the Vice-President, Justice Barak, and I accept it in the main points. I see in it an expansion of the principles and principles that I have discussed in this opinion and in other judgments that have dealt with the interpretation of contracts and law from additional and comprehensive perspectives, which complement what I have said above.
- Therefore, I would accept the appeal, and hold that the proper interpretation of clause 6(h)3 of the program contract is that proposed by the appellant, to say that the clause deals with a reduction from the price of the apartment due to a delay in the execution of the construction. In light of the result, the respondent will bear the appellant's expenses at both levels in the total sum of NIS 15,000, and it is clear that the appellant's obligation to pay the expenses of the first degree is void in any case upon the acceptance of the appeal.