"The basic rule of interpretation in contract law is that from among the various linguistic meanings of the contractual 'text', the interpreter must choose the same legal meaning that fulfills the 'intentions of the parties'... In determining the range of linguistic meanings of the contractual text (whether oral or written), the interpreter acts as a linguist. He asks himself what are the meanings that can be given, in the language in which the contract was concluded – and whether the parties have their own lexicon, within the framework of this lexicon – in his language. From the variety of linguistic meanings, the commentator draws out a single (legal) meaning. The 'retrieval rule' is the intention of the parties, i.e., the purpose that the contract is intended to fulfill" (Civil Appeal 708/88 [31], at p. 747).
In the absence of a claim for a special lexicon – and such an argument was not made in the case before us – the interpreter is not permitted to give the language of the contract a meaning that it cannot bear in the Hebrew language. My colleague, Justice Matza, rightly noted that it is not possible (literally) to compress into a text, which deals with the realization of a purchase undertaking after the end of the execution period, a meaning that concerns the completion of the construction of apartments after the end of the execution period, i.e., "delay in execution". Indeed, if the judicial activity had been limited to interpretation in its narrow sense, there would have been room to agree with my colleagues that the appeal should be dismissed. However, judicial activity in the context of a legal text is not limited to interpretation in the narrow sense only. Let us now turn to interpretation in the broad sense, and its implications for the appeal before us.
Correcting a Contract Mistake
- Section 16 of the Contracts (General Part) Law provides:
"If there is a clerical error or similar mistake in the contract, the contract will be amended according to the intentions of the parties, and the mistake is not grounds for cancelling the contract."