In the development areas (type II)? The answer to this question depends, of course, on the interpretation (in the narrow sense) of the program contract. If my view is accepted, that the interpretation of the contract – while changing its language in order to realize its purpose (paragraph 25 above) – leads to the conclusion that clause 6(h)(3) of the program contract deals with a civil sanction for delay in performance, then the program contract is not lacking in this matter, and there is no room for its completion. It was found that dealing with filling a deficiency in this matter can only be done on the basis of the assumption, which I do not share, that the interpretation of the contract leads to the conclusion that clause 6(h)(3) of the Progressive Contract deals only with the realization of a purchase obligation that comes after the end of the performance period. According to this assumption – which is the assumption of my colleague, Justice Matza – is the contract missing, can it be completed, and what is the result of this completion? 38. It seems to me that according to the basic assumptions that were used for the first instance and for my colleague, Justice Fitza, in the Progressive contract what is missing with regard to the (civil) sanction for delay in the execution of the apartments in the development areas. The first instance noted in this matter that:
"It should be noted that if we do so, and we accept the interpretation of the government counsel, then there will be a clause of a fine for delay in the demand to fulfill the purchase undertaking. Either way, one clause will be missing. If so, it is better to leave this subsection in its place and meaning."
Indeed, as was rightly pointed out by the first instance, if the interpretation advocated by the first instance is accepted, there will be no sanction clause in the event of a delay in the construction of apartments in development areas. On the other hand, a mistake was made before the first instance – and this mistake was also repeated by my colleague, Justice Matza – in his ruling that if the state's position is accepted, a clause of a fine for delay in the demand to fulfill a purchase undertaking in respect of apartments in development areas will be missing. The sanction regarding delay in the requirement is found in clauses 6(h)(1) and (2) of the program contract, which provide: