Changing the language of the contract
- The creator of the text determines his language. As a rule, the interpreter is not permitted to make a change in the language of the text. The change in the text must be made by its creator. However, our legal tradition recognizes the power of the court to make changes to the legal text in appropriate cases. Thus, for example, the court's power to change the language of a law is recognized. "... When the intention of the legislature is clear and when a literal interpretation of the law leads to a result that is contrary to the intention of the legislature as expressed in other sections of the law, the court may... to add to the law what the legislature lacked..." (Justice Etzioni Other Municipality Requests 403/72 HaMeretz - Car Bodies and Metalwork in Tax Appeal v. Grave [55], at p. 431). The accepted approach is that it is possible to change the language of the law "when the error is clearly clear to all and its incorrectness, even by way of judicial interpretation, would have led to the thwarting of the legislature's apparent purpose or to a real harm to the interests recognized in that legislation..." (Judge H. Cohen in the Bar Association's appeal64/72Sopran v. District Committee of the Israel Bar Association, Tel Aviv-Jaffa [56], at p. 129). Justice Berenson expressed this well, stating:
"We are interpreters and not just any linguists. What is a good interpreter of a law, who does the will of the legislature? The legislature is also nothing but a combination of flesh and blood, and it is liable to be mistaken. A mistake – if it can be corrected without injustice – always comes back. When a mistake in the law is apparent, one must penetrate through the bodies of words into the spirit that beats in them, and give preference to the spirit over the body. The purpose of an honest and enlightened interpretation is to reveal the truth and put things in place. The means are the rules of interpretation based on the foundations of logic and experience, and which penetrate the heart and soul" (High Court of Justice 188/63 Bazol et al. v. Minister of the Interior et al. [57], at p. 350).