the contract. Literal interpretation leads to absurdity, inconsistency and inconvenience when it does not fulfill the purpose of the contract. Indeed, a judge who interprets a contract made by the parties may, in special cases, change the language of the contract. He will do so in order to fulfill the purpose underlying the contract. Needless to say, the use of this authority should be done with the utmost caution. The court is not allowed to write contracts for the parties. The requirements of the form and the rules of evidence regarding the contradiction of the writing must be respected. The judge's activity in amending the text made by the parties should, naturally, be limited to extreme cases, in which the purpose would be thwarted if the language of the text was not changed.
- Indeed, my colleague, Justice Matza, acted in this way, when he interpreted the program contract. Clause 6(h)(2) of the Program Contract states:
"In the event of the realization of the purchase obligation after 18 months from the end of the execution period, an amount of 2% will be deducted from the price of the apartment that will be determined as stated in clause (1) above."
The language of this section indicates that the reduction of 2% applies "in the event of the realization of the purchase obligation after 18 months from the end of the performance period". There is no hint in the language of the section that this provision is limited only to the requested areas (type A). According to its wording, it is a general provision that begins in every case of the realization of a purchase obligation after 18 months from the end of the execution period. Nevertheless, my colleague was willing to limit the applicability of this provision, but only to the first type of buildings. This approach is apparently rooted in his interpretation of section 6(h)(3). It is understood that my colleague gives to the provision of section 6(h)(3) which explicitly applies to buildings in development areas (type B) led him to call into the provision of section 6(h)(2) the reduction of their application to type A only. This exegetical approach (in the broad sense) is appropriate. A contract should be read as a comprehensive and uniform document. You have to strive for compatibility between its various parts. One instruction should not be isolated and viewed as the façade of everything: